Jack Haas wrote:
> Greetings: I have been concerned with some discussion on the ASA list
> in the recent period. As one of the founders of the group I hoped that
> it would not end up at the rhetorical level of much (not all) of
> talk.origins. It was clear when we started that there would be sharp
> debates between advocates of old and young earth positions and the
> never-ending question of evolution. Intelligent design was sure to
> create large volumes of discussion. I was concerned that
> anti-Christian attitudes of some participants might be destructive of
> the kinds of discussion that we wanted to take place. This has
> happened to other 'Christian news groups.' Until recently we have done
> reasonably well. On occasion, people have admitted that they were
> wrong or apologized when they went too far. Today, the list of
> contributors is, perhaps, more narrow than is healthy. I am more
> disturbed by the disruptive contributions of one or two non-ASA people
> who have severe mental problems. Private expressions of concern have
> had no effect on those with a 'mission.' Some are asking whether this
> sort of rhetoric should be part of a list supported by a Christian
> organization. One person has resigned from the ASA membership in
> protest. Do we risk failing in 'our mission?' How should we deal with
> disruptive participants? Remember that we are a un-moderated list
> which allows anyone to join and participate - without censorship.
I have previously recommended a simple refusal to respond to
persons who are known disrupters - a recommendation I haven't always
followed myself, I'm afraid. Liberal use of the Delete button is also
helpful.
To be specific (Why beat around the bush?), since Mr. Hammond
has said that he is submitting his "Scientific Proof of God" to Zygon, I
think it would be appropriate for everyone to hold discussion or
criticisms of his argument in abeyance until he hears about the result
of that submission. If the paper is accepted then we ought to be
willing to have it discussed here in an appropriate manner. If it is
rejected then Mr. Hammond ought to go back and take a new look at his
assumptions and arguments.
No, I don't think that Zygon is the supreme arbiter of all
science-religion issues. But this seems like a reasonably pragmatic way
to deal with a topic that has become, for whatever reasons, troublesome
for this list.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 17 2001 - 09:13:10 EDT