Joe Felsenstein <joe at evolution.genetics.washington.edu> wrote in article <5ka7c7$qcg at nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <5ka2t5$63r at news.u-strasbg.fr>,
> Francois JEANMOUGIN <jeanmougin at igbmc.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
> >In article <5k9qoq$22h at mserv1.dl.ac.uk>,
> > James McInerney <J.McInerney at nhm.ac.uk> writes:
> >> I think the time is ripe again to have a discussion about our newsgroup
> >> name. The last time we mentioned this subject was about last July. [...]
> >> bionet.molbio.phylogeny
> >> What does everybody else think?
> > I suggested this to Joe last year, because I'm already losing
> >lot of tiome on news, and when I go in such of my favorite newsgroup,
> >I'm a little bit disapointed that the only messages available are not
> >about molecular biology of evolution, but religion
> >... Another soution could be a moderator...
>> Contrary to a widespread impression, I am not in charge of this
> newsgroup, however loudmouthed I may be.
>> Given all the creationist postings, which usually start out with the
> same dishonest approach: "I am just a student who is a bit puzzled by
> evolution theory. Could anyone explain how ..." it is clearly now time
> to moderate this newsgroup, so the creationist debaters can go back to
> talk.origins where their discussion properly belongs. We can clearly see
> that molecular-evolution posting are declining on this newsgroup as
> people interested in this area stop reading it.
>> I don't think that calling it "bionet.molbio.phylogeny" (I am using the US
> forms of the newsgroup names) would have any effect on the creationists
> as they ignore the "molbio" in the newsgroup name anyway and post lots of
> stuff that is not related to molecules at all.
I would like to ask a question. Does the exclusion of "creationists" mean only
the young earth Bible based crowd, or anyone who might posit design?
If a design buff posts on molecular biology & evolution, is this acceptable?
Would Dr. Behe be an acceptable member here?