I really don't see anything in any of this that really impacts the post. For example, I don't think I'm re-defining anything. I am using the terms in a way that is common even among scientists. If I was leaving unclear what I meant, I would think that this would be more important to sort out. However, as long as I am within the lexical domain of the words here and I have made it clear precisely what it is that I mean, I wonder how important the matter is.
For example, Bdean, you say: "BTW - A theory can be a model." But TheDoc is essentially saying that "a model can be a theory." That's the gist of the whole "Standard Model" in particle physics 'actually' being a theory.
So, a theory can be a model and a model can be a theory. It seems to me that my obligation is to be clear about what I mean- and I in no case presumed to be speaking specifically from a 'scientific' viewpoint. Thus, the title of the thread is 'explanatory models,' and not 'scientific models.'
I could ask you both if you think that, given the commonly accepted definition of a 'theory,' whether or not you think 'evolution' truly qualifies as a theory.
Also, I should re-iterate that I highlighed Kuhn's 'paradigm' as a good approximation to what I was trying to communicate. If that is no good, and theory is no good (because there is no way in Hades we'll get any evolutionist on the planet to say that Evolution is a theory just like Creation is a theory) and model is no good, what other word do you suggest?
