Geoscience Research Institute

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


1975

All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
Send comments and questions to webmaster@grisda.org

| Home | News |
| About Us | Contact Us |