pmd@cbscc.UUCP (12/23/83)
My apologies if this article appears twice. The first one contained some bad typo's. I don't know if I cancelled the first one in time to prevent it from getting out onto the net. This is a retraction of my original proposal to create a net.origins newsgroup. My original intent was to have a forum of discussion where issues related to origins (of the universe, life, man, etc.) could be discussed openly--with those who are knowledgeable and educated in scientific disciplines related to these areas contributing. The response to the proposal has been mixed (about 50-50) with the opponents of the group being the more vocal. As a result of the discussion on this newsgroup I have decided that I would like to withdraw my suggestion to create it. If there is anyone that still thinks it's a good idea they are welcome to take up the battle. I am tired of arguing. The discussion has been nothing but a philosophical debate. If that is a preview of what will go on in net.origins, then I do not want the newsgroup either. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for the tone of my argument for net.origins. I have said many things in ways that I regret. I mean no offence. My apologies go specifically to Fiengold, Chan, and Stekas. (I hope I spelled all those right). Those who have spoken up in favor of the group have expressed only a casual interest. I didn't get the feeling that they would contribute. Others viewed it rather as a "designated battle ground". I would rather have hoped that it be more like a conference table than a battle field. I don't think I could be a major contributor to the group either. I just wanted to get it going. I have no formal education in any discipline related to origins, but I am an avid reader on the subject (and many other subjects--perhaps too many for my own good). Without regard to my reasons for wanting to see the group created my motives for doing so have been brought under suspicion by opponents of the group's creation. I think this is because in my proposal I also invited creationists to present their views in the new forum so long as they did so apart from religious doctrine. I personally am open to, and very interested in, such a presentation. Many others are not, or believe that there can be no such thing. In all fairness, I think it is hard to blame them for feeling this way. The most visible and influential of the creationists are those who would do great harm to science by having it be molded by biblical fundamentalist beliefs. These people are responsible for the image of creationism that most people have. However, in digging through what may be the "dung" of creationism, I think I have found very worthwhile things. There are a number of scientific (as opposed to "scientific") creationists who are interested in the free exchange of ideas and in submitting their ideas for the critique of their peers. (I don't know if any have access to the net, however). One organization which I believe embodies this spirit is: Students for Origins Research P. O. Box 203 Goleta, CA 93116 They publish a twice-annual paper called "Origins Research". It seems has though they have found some evolutionists who are willing to discuss the issues in a column called "Correspondence Series". If anyone is interested please contact them and order the back issues of "Origins Research". (There are twelve. They cost 50 cents each.) Also I am thankful for the responses of those who, although ardent opponents of creationism, were civil in their tone and offered constructive criticism and recommended reading material. In response to their kind manner I have checked out two books from the library that I feel all creationists should read: Abusing Science by Phillip Kitcher and Science on Trial by Douglas Futyma (There was another suggested--Gould is the author I think--but I can't remember the title). (There is a review of Kitcher's book in the latest issue of "Origins Research") So far, the tone and attitude of these authors disturbs me. They are just as arrogant and vituperous as some of the creationists they deride. In their opening chapters they instill this attitude in their readers. As far as I can tell from the indexes (Futyma's has only 2 pages of it), they don't deal with organizations like SOR, but concentrate on the more popular, "biblical" creationists like Morris, and Gish from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). However, the arguments they present against creationism are very much worth considering. They are very good at pointing out some of most foolish arguments advanced in favor of creationism (and maybe distorting or ignoring some of the better ones). These are only first impressions, however, and I reserve full judgement on these books until after I have read through them. As a final note, I think the suggestion of using net.misc to discuss the origins issue for the time being is a good one. I did submit a critique of Niles Eldredge's book "Monkey Business" there once and got a follow up (flame) telling me to keep all that "religious" stuff in net.religion. You can't please everyone, I guess. Paul Dubuc ... Oh Yeah. Have a great Christmas, everyone.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/24/83)
This is a retraction of my original proposal to create a net.origins newsgroup. My original intent was to have a forum of discussion where issues related to origins (of the universe, life, man, etc.) could be discussed openly--with those who are knowledgeable and educated in scientific disciplines related to these areas contributing. The response to the proposal has been mixed (about 50-50) with the opponents of the group being the more vocal. As a result of the discussion on this newsgroup I have decided that I would like to withdraw my suggestion to create it. If there is anyone that still thinks it's a good idea they are welcome to take up the battle. I am tired of arguing. The discussion has been nothing but a philosophical debate. If that is a preview of what will go on in net.origins, then I do not want the newsgroup either. I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for the tone of my argument for net.origins. I have said many things in ways that I regret. I mean no offence. My apologies go specifically to Fiengold, Chan, and Stekas. (I hope I spelled all those right). Those who have spoken up in favor of the group have expressed only a casual interest. I didn't get the feeling that they would contribute. Others viewed it rather as a "designated battle ground". I would rather have hoped that it be more like a conference table than a battle field. I don't think I could be a major contributor to the group either. I just wanted to get it going. I have no formal education in any discipline related to origins, but I am an avid reader on the subject (and many other subjects--perhaps too many for my own good). Without regard to my reasons for wanting to see the group created my motives for doing so have been brought under suspicion by opponents of the group's creation. I think this is because in my proposal I also invited creationists to present their views in the new forum so long as they did so apart from religious doctrine. I personally am open to, and very interested in, such a presentation. Many others are not, or believe that there can be no such thing. In all fairness, I think it is hard to blame them for feeling this way. The most visible and influential of the creationists are those who would do great harm to science by having it be molded by biblical fundamentalist beliefs. These people are responsible for the image of creationism that most people have. However, in digging through what may be the "dung" of creationism, I think I have found very worthwhile things. There are a number of scientific (as opposed to "scientific") creationists who are interested in the free exchange of ideas and in submitting their ideas for the critique of their peers. (I don't know if any have access to the net, however). One organization which I believe embodies this spirit is: Students for Origins Research P. O. Box 203 Goleta, CA 93116 They publish a twice-annual paper called "Origins Research". It seems has though they have found some evolutionists who are willing to discuss the issues in a column called "Correspondence Series". If anyone is interested please contact them and order the back issues of "Origins Research". (There are twelve. They cost 50 cents each.) Also I am thankful for the responses of those who, although ardent opponents of creationism, were civil in their tone and offered constructive criticism and recommended reading material. In response to their kind manner I have checked out two books from the library that I feel all creationists should read: "Abusing Science" by Philip Kitcher and "Science on Trial" by Douglas Futuyma ("Scientists Confront Creationism", by Godfrey was also suggested but I couldn't find that one.) (There is a review of Kitcher's book in the latest issue of "Origins Research") So far, the tone and attitude of these authors disturbs me. They are just as arrogant and vituperous as some of the creationists they deride. In their opening chapters they instill this attitude in their readers. As far as I can tell from the indexes (Futuyma's has only 2 pages of it), they don't deal with organizations like SOR, but concentrate on the more popular, "biblical" creationists like Morris, and Gish from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). However, the arguments they present against creationism are very much worth considering. They are very good at pointing out some of most foolish arguments advanced in favor of creationism (and maybe distorting or ignoring some of the better ones). These are only first impressions, however, and I reserve full judgement on these books until after I have read through them. As a final note, I think the suggestion of using net.misc to discuss the origins issue for the time being is a good one. I did submit a critique of Niles Eldredge's book "Monkey Business" there once and got a follow up (flame) telling me to keep all that "religious" stuff in net.religion. You can't please everyone, I guess. Paul Dubuc ... Oh Yeah. Have a great Christmas, everyone.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (12/28/83)
Paul Dubuc writes: > I don't think I could be a major contributor to the group either. I just > wanted to get it going. I have no formal education in any discipline > related to origins, but I am an avid reader on the subject He may be reading a different net than I, but from what I see, ignorance is not considered a reason to avoid contribution - even (especially?) major contribution. It's nice to see that there are some people on the net who value reasonable discussion. Thank You, Paul. -- Michael Ward {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!sa%ward