[net.religion] net.origins proposal retracted

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