Re: Christian models of creation

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 07:22:02 EDT

What is a model and what is a paradigm?
Yes YECs have spent much time on their "models" which Kelly et al
pretentiously call Paradigms. It is difficult to engage with them as they
are such nonsense and better called paradumbs.

Of course they make use of Kuhn whose own work is rather flawed - see what
he says about Lyell, as if he was the most important geologist of all, and
Darwin. What we see in these changes is not a sudden change but a gradual
one in which many if not most of the features of the previous "paradigm" are

So-called YEC paradigms have no relationship to previous ones and it is
difficult if not impossible to see any scientific content in a YE paradigm
of geology with all deposition squeezed into a few years.

Against that there is a strong case, and I would argue for it with vigour
and virtually did so for some Harvard students yesterday that the present
geological paradigm is a continuation from ideas of the late 17th century
when it was assumed that all rocks were laid down in the Flood.

We need to see that the alternative models and paradigms of ID and YEC have
no intrinsic merit or worth but are so-called paradigms which are parasitic
on modern science.


PS I was slow in replying as I have just been involved with a Harvard group
looking at Darwin's geology in Wales

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Mahaffy" <>
> That simply is not true generally. Yes it is in my opinion (and I have
> so stated in review of their books) of many of the ID writers.
> Obviously the YEC folks have spent considerable time and effort in
> models of Creation. We may not like their model and may think psrts of
> it are flawed science but they do work on their model. Many other
> Christian models have been propossed in the past (day age etc.).
> However many of not most of the Christian models exist outside the
> paradigm of the accepted model. Because of that, most of the science is
> written in a different model and we sometimes forget that in iteself
> gives more credence to the accepted paradigm simply because it is
> accepted. but if we follow this thread we would have to shift to talking
> about Kuhn.
> By the way I am an agnotic (although a strong theist) to both the
> current established neoDarwinian modle and most Christian alternatives I
> see. However, I also know that human condition likes to have a model and
> in fact the simpler the model the more attractive it is generally.
> --
> James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home)
> 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office)
> Sioux Center, IA 51250
Received on Thu Aug 11 07:33:22 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 07:33:23 EDT