Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gsh7w
From: gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: call for discussion : SCI.PALEONTOLOGY
Message-ID: <2664@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 90 23:28:59 GMT
References: <1031@athen.sinix.UUCP> <25349@ut-emx.UUCP> <171@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Sender: news@hudson.acc.virginia.edu
Reply-To: gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy)
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Lines: 24

In article <171@uncmed.med.unc.edu> unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles
Balan) writes: 

#  I am saddened that someone would find it necessary to exclude any
#  reasonable postings which might contribute to the value of the group.
#  Just because there is a talk group about creationism doesn't mean that
#  creationist ideas should not be discussed in a sci.paleontology group.

There is already a news group for discussions between evolutionists
and creations, talk.origins. The majority of the creationist that post
to t.o quickly show that they have little or know understanding of
science, but are mainly motivated by religious views. While I have no
objection per se of creationist entering the discussions, previous
experiance leads me to beleive that the discussions would not be up to
what we hope for a science group, and we might be left with another
sci.skeptic disappointment. I feel that given the history of the
creationist in t.o, it would be better to keep this aspect in a talk
group. (Why do I feel a flame attack coming on?)


-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w