pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (12/10/83)
I would like to propose that a news group be formed for discussion of origins (i.e. the origin of the universe, life, human beings, etc.). It is my hope that articles of a scientific and informative nature would be submitted to this group. Discussions of this nature have cropped up from time to time in net.religion in the form of creation vs evolution debates. I think it would be good not to burden the readers of net.religion with the technical details of theories of origins. I sense that there are many, like myself, that are interested in ideas of origins (of life, human speech, word meanings, anything) and would benefit if a group to discuss these sort of things existed. My feelings as to why this newsgroup should be created: The fact that the origins issue is usually discussed in a religious context disturbs me. I think that the scientific validity of any theory or belief should rest on its own merits and not be associated with the religious beliefs of its supporters. Also, the desire to rebut a theory should not be the only motive for participating in a discussion of origins. I would hope that if the debate can be removed from it's traditionally religious context more articles of a purely informative nature would be submitted. If there is any scientific validity to creationism it should not have to be proven (or disproven) in a religious context. Also, the often interesting and informative articles on aspects of evolutionary theory should not have to be confined to a religious context. For myself, I am equally interested in the views of both creationists and evolutionists. I think that to categorically and dogmatically assert that creationism is religion and evolution is science may be hubristic. I would hope for a context of discussion were the scientific merits of both could be presented apart from religious dogma. I would hope that those who feel threatened by either position on this issue would refrain from reactionary, hot headed flaming (there is a newsgroup for that) or unsubscribe to the newsgroup. Those who like to discuss the origins issue from a religious standpoint (i.e. to quote the Bible or any other religious book in support of their beliefs) should confine their discussion to net.religion. I would like to propose that the newsgroup be named "net.origins". A name which I feel is generic and general enough to invite discussion on a broad number of topics related to the origin of anything. How about it? Paul Dubuc
robert@arizona.UUCP (12/11/83)
This is to vote nay for net.origins. There are already enough useless groups, why do you need to produce more clutter? Probably the only thing worth discussing on the group would be the origins of more newsgroups, or why are so many people out there trying to be minor dieties, creating their own little universes? Robert Drabek University of Arizona
lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (12/12/83)
Second the motion. (but what do we do about origins of religions? :-)
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!labplaskon@hplabsc.UUCP (Dawn Plaskon) (12/14/83)
I would certainly subscribe to a net.origins newsgroup if one existed. I believe your reasons are rational and make since. I am not religious and am also not into flaming about religion/ non-religion, I am interested in the origins of social interactions including religion and a net.origins would be a good place to discuss these things. I vote yes.
peters@cubsvax.UUCP (12/15/83)
could someone please remind me what net.origins is supposed to be for?
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/19/83)
Oh that's obvious... create net.religion.origins and net.origins.religion. -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay