Hmmm, well that's a good question. I don't think that I can make one answer for all of them.
For astrology, yes, a paradigm difference. They view the movement of planets as symbols of upcoming events, whereas scientists view the planets movements as the result of physical laws. So yes, defnintely a difference in paradigms.
For alien abduction, no. They simply believe some facts are true, when they are not true. They accept a falsehood, and deny true facts.
For homeopathy, well that's a tricky one. My parents raised me on homeopathic remedies, and for some of them, there is scientific evidence in support of them. For example, boosting certain amounts of vitamins and nutrients can help you fight off a disease, just as taking a flu shot or penicillin can. The method and approach of treating the disease, homeopathy being bottom up and flu shots being top down, is definitely different, so I would say in this sense they are different in paradigms. But this is much more of a grey area. For example, tumeric has always been though to be good for your general health, homeopathically. And then recently, a
scientific article found that turmeric can reduce the risk of altzheimers.
Now, if you want to talk about holistic healers (essential oils, pills with natural extracts), then yes, a major paradigmatic difference from conventional medicine. The methods and techniques are different, yet even these two field are fusing. The same article listed above says that fish oils, a common holistic remedy, may have beneficial effects. Rather than scientists convincing holistic healers to see their side, scientists are actually beginning to see the other side through applying the scientific method to test these alternate cures. Though I should note that even if holistic remedies are found scientifically to work, the reason that holist healers think that their methods work (inner chi) is different from the reason scientist think that holistic methods work (testing on mice), so there is still an unbreachable paradigm difference.
To bring this back to the issue at hand, are creationists just plain wrong and misinformed, like the alien abductionists, or have they been taught to ask the wrong sorts of questions, like the holistic healers? I tend to believe the latter, especially concerning discussions about information theory. Creationist have asked scientists to show that information can be gained in order to prove Darwinism. The correct answer from the evolutionist perspective is that the idea of animals evolving more or less information is nonsensical- their evolution does not follow paths of information, it follows paths of greatest survival probablities. I think creationists have been told many falsehoods, but the reason our communication with them is so unsucessful is that they are taught to think about evolution in a different paradigm, which often involves asking questions and making statements that are not exactly wrong but better described as nonsensical statements about how scientific evolution really works.
™ Version 4.2