REACTIONS

Origins 2(1):5 (1975).

Re: Clausen: An evaluation of the use of growth lines in geochronometry, geophysics, and paleoecology (ORIGINS 1:58-66)

    Number 2 of ORIGINS put in its appearance yesterday, and I have been reading it as I walk to work. I note your lament that no one has yet picked Number 1 to pieces. Under such circumstances an editor naturally begins to wonder whether anybody has read the product of his labors. Such, I opine, is not the situation with ORIGINS. Perhaps, in response to your lament, I should set about doing a bit of nit picking on Number 2, but as far as I have read I have found nothing to take exception to. In fact, as you may imagine, I was happily pleased that Dr. Clausen worked a good bit of astronomy into his article. In that area I can check him out, and what he writes reflects the present state of the discipline accurately and lucidly. Keep up the good work.

Raymond F. Cottrell
Book Editor
Review & Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C.

 

Re: Brand: A philosophic rationale for a creation-flood model (ORIGINS 1:73-83)

    I found Dr. Brand's application of Kuhn's paradigm concept to the conflict between the creation-flood model and the uniformitarian model very interesting. I question, however, the view of the creation-flood model as a "new" paradigm challenging the established uniformitarian paradigm. Historically the creation-flood paradigm is much older and the situation is rather more like the creation-flood paradigm being the old established paradigm now almost completely defeated by the revolutionary uniformitarian paradigm. And creationists find themselves not in the position of advocating a revolution to a new paradigm but rather attempting to show that the nearly won revolution by uniformitarians was unwarranted, like a deposed ruler using guerrilla warfare and minor skirmishes to keep alive the fight while stirring up popular support for a counter-revolution.
    In practice I admit that it makes little difference. Creationists were so thoroughly defeated and in fact had a paradigm so slightly developed that they could but poorly defend it. So for all practical purposes we might as well view the counter-revolution as a new revolution.

Terry L. Anderson
Assistant Professor of Physics
Walla Walla College, College Place, Washington