CAPSTalk Configuration & Viewing Posts Online
- Submissions to the CAPSTalk list can be viewed by the
public at the following URL. If deemed necessary, this
can be changed so that only list members can view the
submissions online. Currently there is no restriction
or approval system in place for joining the CAPS email
list, therefore limiting message viewing would serve
CAPSTalk Web Interface
CAPSTalk was established to provide an open forum for
CAPS members, and to replace CAPS's existing email
distribution list with an automated system. Such a
system discourages unsolicited email by providing a
means for self-removal from the list if desired. The
previous list was distributed to anyone interested in
receiving announcements and news from CAPS, and was
not restricted to members to my knowledge. The
CAPSTalk Yahoo-list-service is free, and although
other organizations force membership to participate, I
see this as unnecessarily restrictive.
CAPSTalk is configured so that only list members can
post messages. Problematic individuals can be banned
on a case by case basis if they do not abide by the
established rules for posting. In addition,
submissions to CAPSTalk can be limited to moderators
only. Personally I would like to see the CAPSTalk list
remain open to anyone interested in CAPS and/or
discussing Creation Science with its members, but this
can be changed.
The following was recently submitted to the Creation
Research Society listserv by its membership secretary.
IMHO - Using participation in a freelist to collect
membership dues and likewise threatening to publicly
display the names of the list members who have not
renewed their membership is highly inappropriate for
such an organization. I hope we do not sink to this
level as the CAPSTalk list grows....
--- "Glen W. Wolfrom" <glenw@...> wrote:
> In the next few days I will be checking the list of
> participants against those who have or have not
> renewed their CRS
> Prior to pulling the plug on those who have not
> renewed, I will
> post the list of names whose renewals have not yet
> been received.
> Glen ...
--- AJ Miner <miner1955@...> wrote:
> This appeared on the PNWS skeptics email list today.=====
> They are talking about
> the letter that Chris Ashcraft posted today from
> Doris Anderson to the CAPS
> list. I thought the CAPS email list was for those
> who believe in creation
> only. Is it possible that these guys have
> infiltrated the CAPS email list?
> Are there other ways they can see what is posted? If
> so, is there a more
> secure venue for CAPS people over the internet?
Creation Science Resource
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
- Forwarded Message:
This is Richard Phelps, fellow Creationist, in Louisiana; I am very
pleased to see CAPS making its impact upon the World Wide Web, and
reaching out to those who are looking into Origins-of-Life, and
Why/Who put them here on Earth, to establish meaning and true purpose
in life, from the One Who Made them, Jesus Christ.
I'd like tp post some suggestions for those wishing to counter Mr.
Canham's allegations in his response to Ms. Anderson's letter,
particularly since he erred in his interpretation of the Louisiana
Creationism Act, and mischaracterized Creationists' efforts for
balanced treatment of Origins-of-Life issues in the Public School
--- In CAPSTalk@y..., "AJ Miner" <miner1955@h...> wrote:
> This appeared on the PNWS skeptics email list today. They are
> talking about the letter that Chris Ashcraft posted today from
Doris Anderson to the CAPS list...
> "Tom Canham" <tomcan@M...> writes:
> | This is in response to Ms. Doris Anderson's letter dated
> [insert date of publish here].
> Ms. Doris Anderson's letter of [insert date]
> The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by
> requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from
> public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious
> viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety.
My understanding of the Louisiana Creationism Act (LCA) was that it
merely advocated a *balanced* teaching of evolution and alternate
hypothesis of Origins of Life, not a one-sided presentation of either
> Ms. Anderson, most people I speak with about this seem to believe
> (as I do) that religious faiths, such as Creationism, should indeed
> be a private matter, in the hands of our pastors and parents,
> rather than in the hands of the school district or Senate. It is
> time for us to stand up to theological bullies like Anderson and
> DeHart who, if they are not stopped, would take away our "God-
> given" right to keep our religious faith (or lack thereof) a
> personal thing.
Mr. Canham is taking the oft-stated position, typical of those in a
Unitarian Universalist or atheist world-view, that one's religion
remain private, and not expressable or debatable in the public
marketplace of ideas, of which the Public Schools is such.
However, *religious* evolutionistic dogma *has* been *publically*
presented to captive Public School students for decades, with little
or no room for alternative Origins-of-Life Hypothesis (OLH), *of
which *religious* evolutionism is a hypothesis, not a theory,
according to the parameters of The Scientific Method*.
Organizations such as Dr. Eugenie Scott's National Center for
Science Education (NCSE), according to Dr. Philip Johnson's article
dated June 25, 2001, in Access Research Network's newsletter, _The
Weekly Wedge, at
show the inherent bias in NCSE and similar supposedly "neutral,
Scientific," organizations, against the very idea of expression of
OLH's, as I quote briefly from Dr. Johnson's article cited above:
<< Eugenie Scott is the "police chief" of the Darwinian
establishment, charged with the duty of protecting Darwinism from the
menace of public opinion. She heads an organization called the
National Center for Science Education, which sounds like a government
agency but is actually a purely private group, with lots of
scientists on the letterhead but with Scott doing almost all the
work. She likes to claim that she is a veritable David fighting the
Goliath of creationism with limited resources, although of course
Darwinism is promoted throughout the educational world with vast sums
available from the United States Treasury, from state and local
governments, and from private foundations. It's as if David had not
just a sling to fight with but also a few aircraft carriers, some
nuclear missiles, and a huge propaganda factory. >>
As to Canham's following statement in his letter:
> Ms. Anderson, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I suggest
> After all, if you'd like to live in a theocracy, may I point out how
> well that's working in Afghanistan?
Mr. Canham attempts to equate the academically tenable position of
allowance of the presentation of alternative Origins-Of-Life
Hypothesis alongside that of [religious] evolutionism in the Public
School classroom, to that of the extremist religious theocracy of the
Taliban in Afghanistan. He is mixing metaphors, and engaging in the
ad hominem attack (attack the messenger, not the message).
I assume Mr. Canham's above rhetoric is atypical of other members'
responses on this issue in the Pacific Northwest Skeptics Society.
I welcome any comments, clarifications, or corrections to my post
here, and thank you for allowing my contribution.
(My wife and I used to reside in the Seattle area, until 1991, when
we moved to Louisiana. Several CAPS members were (and are) very
influential in my family's coming around to pro-Creationist views; we
extend our thanks to them--you know who you are.
Creation Science Resource
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!