Uniformitarianism

I think I would find this discussion interesting, to start it off on with a creationist on the path, is not uniformitarian encompassed by assumption? And if not what makes it so?------------------

"Not really an assumption more a reductionalist methodology, i.e if you find a model that requires only natural phenomena and explains the evidence it is simpler (and therefore preferable) to a model that makes an appeal to the supernatural....."
--It sounded respondable untill you said that it combats a 'model that makes an appeal to the supernatural' as I have done no such thing in all of my posts, I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today. The uniformitarian assumption seems to be contracted from it being an explenation that 'explains the evidence as it is simpler', scientific data is not about simplicity, as this method was used by ancient civilizations, finding that nature was too overwhelming for them to explain, so they resolved to simplicity, ie everything is the way it is because of the Gods. As this would be reduced to an analogy of what we are discussing, it makes a point. Just because a method is simple, doesn't mean it is the right method.------------------

"In the very first sentence, it is conceded that uniformiatarianism is an assumption. I term it a "fundimental principle". But yes, it is an assumption. It assumes that nature is a result of natural processes."
--I'm glad we can agree here."TC, I don't really follow what you mean by "to start it off on with a creationist on the path"."
--I was refering as me entering into the discussion as a creationist, as it seems no other creationists have discussed in here yet."No where in message 1 is any reference made of God and/or the supernatural. God and/or the supernatural is not specificly excluded; Considerations of God and/or the supernatural are merely not included."
--I am fully aware uniformitarian thinking allows catastrophic happenings to take place as they see it fit toward their theory (ofcourse they would most likely not accept a Global Flood of the catastrophic intensity as the bible portrays). Though I am speculative of why you would think that I would include any supernatural intervention, I do not believe that I have portrayed any need of supernatural intervention to explain natural phenomena in any way, discluding origins."I still don't like this definition, as it is directly athiestic. I have come to a greater appreciation of what Percy posted."
--I would disagree with this definition also, it takes for instance my stance on things and takes it to the extream, also saying it explaines 'all' phenomena, in I think we would all agree the more knowledgable you are the more you realize how little we know about the universe and consequently its history."This definition of naturalism I like (or at least this part of the definition). Naturalism, however, remains a "loaded" term, probably best avoided."
--Again we can agree, in my eyes I seem to sence that this is trying to point toward their view on creationists, though this definition seems the most accurately portrayed in this topic.--Would Uniformitarian be merely a philosophical idea or is it based on or include evidence that the way it is happening today is how it has always happend (with some bending as I breifly explained above).------------------

"Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
Contains an very good summary of the various ideas (including uniformatarianism) that are at the foundation of the geologic science thought process."
--Thats great, so what part would you like me to comment on?-------------------

All my post said was that if there are two theories pertaining to a phenomena the simpler one is better if it explains the event fully."
--This is not neccessarelly true, as I gave the analogy of mythology to explain the phenomenal, and today we know it as otherwize. Another analogy is, it is easy to say that there is a river of light in the atmosphere that is created when moonlight strikes the poles, but we know today that this is not what causes the aurora, and the aurora is much more complex than this."A theory that makes appeal to the supernatural i.e Goddidit is necessarily more complex (containing as it does a factor that is by definition unknown) and therefore under a reductionalist methodology is less satisfactory than a theory that relies on no such factors."
--I would have to say it is wrong that it is more complex, it is pretty much the simplest case because all there is is....Goddidit, there, closed case. But this has no relevance to our discussion, as I make no relevance to impede that, 'Goddidit' as I have emphesised throughout my posts."I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.""I`m sorry this sentence makes no sense to me what did you mean?"
--I mean 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today.' I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Creation science has nothing to do with the causes of inflicting divine intervention to explain naturalistic phenomena, that is, to explain why/how things are the way they are. It is pure natural science.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-26-2002]

"1)The fact remains that an appeal to the supernatural results in an unresolvable complexity in a theory this is as true of mythology as Goddidit."
--I see what your saying, though since we cannot experiment on the supernatural or observe it, we can get no information out of it, thus is a simple statement as to say 'Goddidit' and end it there."The simplest acceptable theory should still be supported by evidence (I think you will find that the moonlight striking the poles fulfills less evidence than the current solar wind theory)."
--Yes I agree, though this does not mean it is correct, it could be a far cry from what actually happend."2)Appeals to the supernatural are unresolvably complex because they are by definition appeals to the unknown and unknowable. Hence Goddidit is not simple but an increadibly vague theory."
--Because of its scale of vagueness it is simple, we cannot experiment on anything with the supernatural, thus there is no data and you resolve to the statment that well, 'goddidit'."3)Most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round......."
--Ofcourse, that is why creation science is science. But anyways, what was the topic we were discussing subfacing?------------------

"In a perhaps oversimplification, uniformitarianism states that "generally, the geologic processes we see happening today, are the same geologic processes that happened in the past". Certainly, some conditions have changed, never to happen again; And unusual, catastropic events are also recognized to have happened in the past. Yes, uniformitarianism is an assumption. A very reasonable assumption."
--Sertaintly, I must be in the place to relatively concur with you."Is there a real reason why the uniformitarianism assumption should be abandoned, such that vast amounts of the geologic record can be a result of the Noahtic flood?"
--It is my interperetation that will say yes."I don't wish to stray off into something better covered in another topic. But, the the geologic record is extremly complex, and well explainable in the frame of uniformitarianism."
--Sertaintly is.------------------

Anyone want to carry the topic of Uniformitarianism anywhere?------------------

"No, TC, the "Godidit" argument is not simpler; it is merely simplistic.Very different.It doesn't explain anything if it explains everything, if you get my meaning.Simple explanations are those that explain a phenomena in the most elegant way, but they are still explanations."Godidit" actually adds complexity because it raises more questions than it answers. What is the nature of this God? What mechanism did this God use to do what you say it did? etc. etc.A naturalistic explanation, no matter how complex in details, is always simpler than a supernatural explanation."
--I see what your saying, however, I don't think I can fully agree, because when you are going to contrast with details, on a natural level you simply come to an unpredictably infinite numbers. This is especially true in Meteorology. I also don't think that the notion that it raises more questions than it answers is all to relevent in the way that I put it. Simply because the Goddidit argument is simply, that Goddidit, and we don't care about the details. However, if you really want to go into all the philosophical possibilities, sure you could come up with as much a complex scenario as you wish, it will vary based on opinion and imagination.------------------