Re: Christian models of creation

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 10:44:24 EDT

Many scientists laugh at what they presume is the illogic of those who say,
"I don't know, but God did it", in response to questions for which they, as
yet, have no cogent answer.

Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in knowing whether there are
any on this forum that would agree that this statement, "I don't know, but
I know that God couldn't have done it", is a cogent answer that most
critical thinkers would accept as being coherent / justified.

Janice

At 07:22 AM 8/11/2005, Michael Roberts wrote:
>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 retained
>
>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.
>
>Michael
>
>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" <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>
> > 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 10:46:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 10:46:50 EDT