mark@ism780.UUCP (12/20/83)
This belongs in net.philosophy and not net.physics. I appologize for wasting the time of a phisics discussion group with issues that are unrelated to physics. My only excuse is that it is directly relevent to recent discussions in this forum. If you are already sick of the recent trend delete this message (I promise I won't send you another). FLAME ON! I am frightened by the arrogance that empowers some people to try to prevent other people from expressing and exchanging their beliefs. To object to the discussion of scientific creationism in net.physics because it does not fall within the common scope of interest that binds that forum is reasonable. It is even reasonable to object to such discussion because some people find it morally offensive. Unfortunately, expressions of disdain for creationism have gone further. What empowers anyone in this or any other forum to deny people who are interested in scientific creationism a forum in which to discus it? Ignorance, fear and censorship appear in many guises. I do not see much difference between the fundamentalist who wants to pervert the eductational system to assure tha children receive a proper religious up-bringing and the net.physicist who wants to prevent the establishment of of a network forum for this subject. Both people are frightened by points of view that differ from their own and are seeking legislative protection for their embattled belief systems. I am intellectually offended by scientific creationism. I am frightened by the social implications of religious imperialism that seeks to legislate the religious upbringing of children. If, however, I am asked to choose between an offensive maniac who is preaching in the park and a body of concerned citizens who seek to censor him, I have to side with the offensive maniac. Scientific creationism may challenge our academic, political and social structure. Religious and philosophical censorship are more likely to doom them. --- mark --- FLAME OFF --------
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (12/23/83)
I don't remember any posting in net.physics which said that
creation advocates should be prohibited from having a forum.
What WAS stated was:
1) it should NOT be net.physics (Obviously)
2) NOR under a new newsgroup heading which misrepresented
the purpose of the group.
"Scientific" creationism may be many things to many people, but it is
not physics. And puting it under a heading of something like net.origins
would give the missleading impression that issues like Big Bang vs. Steady
State might be discussed.
Frankly, I'm very pleased that net.physics has shown enough integrity to
stand up to the creationists and their "free exchange of ideas" nonsense.
Creationists are as interested in the free exchange of ideas as the leaders
of the Democratic nations of Eastern Europe are in elections.
Jimpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/23/83)
"Scientific" creationism may be many things to many people, but it is
not physics. And puting it under a heading of something like net.origins
would give the missleading impression that issues like Big Bang vs. Steady
State might be discussed.
So your objection to the name is based on prior knowledge of the subject
matter? That's interesting. What are the reasons why issues like Big Bang
vs. Steady State will not be discussed in net.origins? I deliberately
chose the name so as to invite such discussion. But I don't expect you
to believe that. You know better that I do what my motives were, don't you?
Frankly, I'm very pleased that net.physics has shown enough integrity to
stand up to the creationists and their "free exchange of ideas" nonsense.
Creationists are as interested in the free exchange of ideas as the leaders
of the Democratic nations of Eastern Europe are in elections.
I think this amounts to not allowing creationists opportunity for free exchange
because you're sure they are not *really* interested in doing so. I'm not
sure if most of them are either. But I'm sure glad we have people like you
around who can warn us about what creationists are really interested in.
Otherwise we might have to consider their opinion on the matter.
Paul Dubuc