Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!emory!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary From: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: sci.space or talk.origins? (was Re: Creationists and Moon Dust) Message-ID: <1539@ke4zv.UUCP> Date: 14 Nov 90 19:56:15 GMT References: <7470005@hpfcso.HP.COM> <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> <10350@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) Organization: Gannett Technologies Group Lines: 42 In article <10350@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >In article <1519@ke4zv.UUCP> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >: >: In article <1990Nov9.223440.5571@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >: >This is coming from the point of view of a "creationist" who doesn't >: >care how old the world is, or the mechanism by which it was made: only >: >who started the mechanism. Some folks do believe that. Be careful not >: >to assume all folks are the same. And if you want to flame me, kindly >: >do it e-mail. The flames don't belong here either. >: >: I've got to ask what a creationist with this unscientific attitude is doing >: in a sci group or for that matter receiving my tax dollars at a public >: scientific institution. Don't you belong in a Monastary sir? I've >: got no quarrel with someone who might say God created the big bang, now >: let's work out the science from there. But someone who says God created >: the Universe and then declares that that is all that counts and disavows any >: interest in working out the science can't claim to be a scientist or be >: trusted to do scientific work. > >Hmmm... > >Could it perhaps be that you've misread Gary's article? I read the "doesn't I think you mean lvron's article. >care" as an assertion of open-mindedness on the means, not lack of interest. >As such, there is nothing there inconsistent with a scientific attitude, apart >from any emotional baggage you wish to attach to the word "creationist", >which, after all, he did put into quotes to tell you it wasn't being used in >the ordinary sense. > >While we're on the subject of being in touch with reality, you shouldn't >assume that everyone who works at a scientific institution is a scientist, >either. (I think there are more secretaries than scientists at JPL. Which >is not to say that the rest of us aren't keenly interested in science...) >Using such an assumption as the basis of a quasi-diatribe is not in the >best interests of net harmony. Ok, I probably over-reacted to what may have been merely an unclear choice of words on the original posters part. Sorry net. Gary