Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!mephisto!mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uncmed!calico!unccab
From: unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: call for discussion : SCI.PALEONTOLOGY
Message-ID: <173@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 15:55:07 GMT
References: <1031@athen.sinix.UUCP> <25349@ut-emx.UUCP> <171@uncmed.med.unc.edu> <2664@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Sender: news@uncmed.med.unc.edu
Reply-To: unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Lines: 44

In article <2664@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes:
>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 this may be so [I don't receive talk.*] I certainly don't believe
 that apparently low-quality postings of any group categorically
 disqualifies their cause.  I have seen poor postings in sci.physics,
 sci.lang, etc., yet I wouldn't say that their poor rhetoric automatically
 disproves their theories or beliefs.  I am hopeful that this is not what
 you meant.  I can understand that there may not be many scientists who
 are scientific creationists who post to the group.  But we all know that
 the actual number of Ph.D's who post to the net in general is rather low
 in comparison to the general population (this is my assumption).
 By the way, most of the scientific creationism material I have read
 doesn't mention any religious views or dogma, only theories on origins.


>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,

 I am glad that you feel this way.  If I may restate this, you are saying
 that you would like the postings in sci.paleontology to be of high
 quality, whether or not they are from scientific creationists.  I must
 say we are in complete agreement here.

>(Why do I feel a flame attack coming on?)

  I am sure you can't mean me!  I don't practice flaming, I would 
  end up burning my own fingers! :)

  Let us not turn this into a debate on theories of origins, let's just
  discuss the means of getting sci.paleontology started, if there is
  enough interest by the net.users.




                            Charles Balan
UNCCAB@med.unc.edu   ,    UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp    ,   UNCCAB@unc.bitnet
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire  %%%%%%%%%%%%