>I was on this list back in the days when it was a private list of Phil
>Johnson and there was lots of interesting discussion on it. Recently we
>lost Glenn and John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
>Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:10:50 -0600
>that "an increasingly large percentage of the posts are off topic." But
>as John also noted, "that the quality of this list,
>particular on the topic of Christianity and Evolutionary theory, has
>been getting quite low, and an increasingly large percentage of the
>posts are off topic." And he noted that there are a couple of noisy non
>christians with a different agenda that are "turning this into just
>another alt.atheism or talk.origins amateur slug fest. Those newsgroups
>already exist, and for a reason."
this was sent to me when I subscribed to this list. I assume everyone got a
copy of it when they subscribed:
"This list has its origins in an e-mail reflector begun by Berkeley law
professor, Phillip E. Johnson. Dr. Johnson is known for his critique of
evolutionary theory and naturalism in his book _Darwin on Trial_, Second
edition, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993). He began this
group in 1993 as forum for the discussion of the implications of theism for
the evaluations of evolutionary theory. A commitment to theism is shared by
most participants in the group, but there is a wide range of opinions under
that rubric including people who would call themselves young earth
creationists, intelligent design proponents, progressive creationists, and
theistic evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists). Some of the
participants prefer to remain unlabelled and maybe are agnostic with respect
to the latter categories. While the group is not off-limits to critics of
theism, we are not interested in the sort of creationist-bashing that
occurs in other contexts; however, good-faith questions and relevant
observations are welcome from those critics."
I'm very curious which threads currently running or that have run in the
past do not fall within these guidelines. The thread on psychiatry was
off-topic, but an attempt--which failed--was made to take the discussion
off list.
>I agree that this list should not be restricted to Christians but
>neither should we let them change the nature of the list.
what is the nature of the list other than to discussion evolution--the
actual name of the list--and the details of evolution and intelligent
design? And which threads, exactly, aren't discussing those ideas?
>Since this list is not monitored, it would take some folks politely
>suggesting that certain topics or threads or even agenda would better be
>handled elsewhere.
please give some examples. I'm also curious about "agendas" being handled
elsewhere. Where else? ID and evolution must stand or fall on their merits.
It is my belief that ID has no scientific merit. I have no wish to convert
anyone to atheism. For me it is a simple, bald fact of life and the "god/no
god" debate bores me. I *do* object to religionists promulgating ignorance.
It's bad religion and bad Christianity. That topic should be of some
interest to all of the theists on this list and, as near as I can tell,
wholly consistent with the list guidelines.
>And broadly I think this list should at the minimum focus on issues
>related to evolution and Christianity.
Forgive me, but I thought that's what we *were* discussing! Maybe I'm
missing something and you should get more specific.
One last thing: as far as I know there is no maximum number of posts per
day on this list. If there is one, it must be very high. Therefore if
someone wants to discuss something that is more "on topic" there's plenty
of room for them to do so. Please! Jump in! the water's fine :-)
Susan
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/