Uniformitarianism

From "Evolution of the Earth", 2nd Edition, Robert H. Dott, Jr. & Roger L. Batten, McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp.38-39THE DOCTRINE OF UNIFORMITY TODAYThe uniformity of nature, or uniformitarianism, must be examined carefully. First, we note that uniformity is an assumption about nature - a doctrine rather than a logically proven natural law. Hutton himself said in 1788 that "the uniformity of nature, even if not strictly true, is necessary for out clear conception of the system of nature."Much confusion exists about the uniformity doctrine, even among scientists. The unititiated interpret is as implying literally that the earth always has been exactly the same - a Lyellian influence. An old cliche that the present is the key to the past is misunderstood by many, too, for the present earth is unique in terms of climate, topography, and life. In part the past is a key to the present, for the historical record provides a perspective against which to compare the present.How, then, is uniformity to be regarded? Only a static earth could be completely unchanging, yet ours clearly is dynamic. Lyell allowed change, for that is what the Principles was all about. His changes, however, were orderly, cyclic ones confined within narrow limits. But a Lyellian stead-state dynamic earth would defy basic laws of physics. This contradiction was recognized by the nineteenth century British physicist Lord Kelvin, who challenged strict uniformitarianism as perpetual motion - an earth machine that never ran down was a physical absurdity! Kelvin reasoned that the energy reservoir of the entire solar system must have been greater in the past and was gradually being dissipated. His position implied significant differences of intensity of past conditions, thus a noncyclic view of the earth.Today we envision neither a violently catastrophic not a rigidly uniform earth, but rather an evolutionary one that has changed through an irreversible chain of cumulative historic events.(Quoting John Playfair, 1802): Amid all the revolutions of the globe the economy of Nature has been uniform, and her laws are the only thing that have resisted the general movement. The rivers and the rocks, the seas, and the continents have been changed in all their parts; but the laws which describe those changes, and the rules to which they are subject, have remained invariably the same. (endquote)The only assumption we make today is that physical and chemical laws are constant, which is properly called actualism. By inductive reasoning and analogy, the study of geologic processes action today provides up with powerful clues to their past action, but we do not assume that those processes always acted with the same rates and intensities. There is confusion about what is meant by "catastrophic" processes and by a lack of appreciation of the vastness of geologic time. Geologists today routinely accept sudden, violent, and even certain unique events as perfectly consistent with contemporary earth theory. Only by substituting the term actualism for the ambiguous uniformitarianism can misconceptions be minimized. (My "bolds" - Added by edit - Moose)End of quotation from cite.So uniformitarianism is out, actualism is in.Mooseps. I was pushing my touch typing abilities to their limits. And wordpad doesn't have spell check.Edit note: Some typos fixed c. 1:37 pm, 1/13/02

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-14-2002]

From http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp (which was found at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=1&t=40&m=11#11

quote:

---

Many ideas have been proposed since this time in an attempt to bridge Flood geology to modern geology. Since modern historical geology is defined and summarized by the global uniformitarian stratigraphic column (GUC), the logical starting point has been the reinterpretation of the GUC within a catastrophic and short-term framework. The main focus of this effort has been the merging of the first eleven chapters of Genesis into the GUC (Figure 1). From a conceptual standpoint this approach appears reasonable. However, the experience of the past several decades has shown that integration is difficult, perhaps because the extrascientific presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism are pervasively imbedded in the GUC.

---

and later at same paper:

quote:

---

Any ongoing effort to join the GUC to creationist geology must by definition explain how it can be harmonized globally. If a given model fails at the NGOMB, it has failed. If these efforts fail (and we believe they have) the model(s) must be abandoned or modified! Failure to discard bad ideas will only lead to greater confusion in creation science. Both creationist and secular scientists require internal corrections to their models and ideas. We believe a new approach to creationist stratigraphy is required. We hope that other creationists will focus their efforts developing concepts and models that eschew the GUC.

---

More food for thoughtMoose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

...perhaps because the extrascientific presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism are pervasively imbedded in the GUC.

---

Creationists: How is naturalism and uniformitarianism "extrascientific"?

quote:

---

We hope that other creationists will focus their efforts developing concepts and models that eschew the GUC.

---

The creationist view in the cited paper is that uniformitarianism must be abandoned, for them to find evidence for the "great flood".Creationists: What flaw(s) to you find in uniformitarianism, as defined in message #1, other that it leads to conclusions contrary to your personal beliefs?Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
When they say uniformitarianism do they mean uniformitarianism or actualism?

---

I've added, by edit, some bold to the first message of this string.Uniformitarianism is a term, for better or worse, that is entrenched in the geologic terminology.Dott and Batton are saying that the current usage of "uniformitarianism" is such that it is equivilent to "actualism".In looking up "actual" etc. in my Websters, I fail to see how this term clarifies the situation.Actual:
1) existing in act; real; in opposition to speculative, or existing in theory only; as, an actual crime; actual receipts.
2)existing at the present time; as, the actual condition of the country.
(Note: The was no entry for "actualism"; also, I presume they are using the less than scientific meaning of "theory" above)The much creationist despised term "naturalism", doesn't seem to be quite right either.Naturalism:
3)in philosophy, the belief that the natural world is the whole of reality and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, value, control, or significance: It holds that scientific laws can explain all phenomena.I would like a term that makes no comment on supernatural input. My preferred definition of "naturalism" would be something along the line of:
The belief that the scientific study of the natural world should be the study of natural causes.
I exclude any acceptance or denial of the supernatural.Moose {Edit - Fix a typo on 1/3/06}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-03-2006 11:38 PM

Found this blurb on naturalism though a link of schrafinator's, from another topic string.
http://www.skepdic.com/naturalism.htmlPreviously posted it at the athiesm topic, but this was where I really wanted it.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Creationists: How is naturalism (as defined in link of message 8) and uniformitarianism (as defined in message 1) "extrascientific"?

​

The creationist view in the cited paper (message 2) is that uniformitarianism must be abandoned, for them to find evidence for the "great flood".

​

Creationists: What flaw(s) to you find in uniformitarianism, as defined in message #1, other that it leads to conclusions contrary to your personal beliefs?

​

Note: Some additions by Moose, on 1/23/02

---

As I see it, uniformitarianism and naturalism, as above defined, are one and the same. These principles are at the very foundation of geologic science, and science in general.Creationist: What faults to you find in these principles? Or are you conceding that they are valid?If we can not resolve the above questions, any other debate is superfluous.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

For what ever it is worth, I have rehashed some of the previous messages, with some commentary from me.

quote:

---

TrueCreation (message 10): 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?

---

quote:

---

Dott & Batten via Moose (message 1): The uniformity of nature, or uniformitarianism, must be examined carefully. First, we note that uniformity is an assumption about nature - a doctrine rather than a logically proven natural law.

---

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.TC, I don't really follow what you mean by "to start it off on with a creationist on the path".

quote:

---

Dott & Batten via Moose: Today we envision neither a violently catastrophic not a rigidly uniform earth, but rather an evolutionary one that has changed through an irreversible chain of cumulative historic events.

---

and

quote:

---

Dott & Batten via Moose: The only assumption we make today is that physical and chemical laws are constant, which is properly called actualism. By inductive reasoning and analogy, the study of geologic processes acting (typo: action corrected to acting) today provides up with powerful clues to their past action, but we do not assume that those processes always acted with the same rates and intensities. There is confusion about what is meant by "catastrophic" processes and by a lack of appreciation of the vastness of geologic time. Geologists today routinely accept sudden, violent, and even certain unique events as perfectly consistent with contemporary earth theory.

---

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.On to naturalism.

quote:

---

From Webster's via Moose (message 5): Naturalism: 3)in philosophy, the belief that the natural world is the whole of reality and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, value, control, or significance: It holds that scientific laws can explain all phenomena.

---

I still don't like this definition, as it is directly athiestic. I have come to a greater appreciation of what Percy posted.

quote:

---

Percy (message 6):Naturalism shouldn't be confused with science. Naturalism is a late 19th- and early 20th-century aesthetic movement inspired by adaptation of the principles and methods of natural science, especially the Darwinian view of nature, to literature and art. In other words, naturalism is a philosophy based upon science, not the other way around. Unlike naturalism, science does not specifically exclude the supernatural, but merely confines itself to that for which there is evidence detectable by human senses.

---

quote:

---

From http://www.skepdic.com/naturalism.html (cited in message 8): Thus, naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.

---

This definition of naturalism I like (or at least this part of the definition). Naturalism, however, remains a "loaded" term, probably best avoided.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.htmlContains an very good summary of the various ideas (including uniformatarianism) that are at the foundation of the geologic science thought process.Moose

A scrap, brought over from message 14, of the "Flood Stories" topic
(which is at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=15&p=5 ):

quote:

---

Moose: Care to bring your thoughts on uniformitarianism to the uniformitarianism topic I started?
TC: Sure, would you just like me to reply to your first post?

---

The first two postings just contain information. The questions start in message 3.TC, in message 14:

quote:

---

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).

---

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.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?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.To any and all - please also see the other messages between the beginning and this posting. As of now, there aren't that many.Regards,
Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Giving this topic a bump, to bring it to TB's attention.The YEC view of the earth's geology seems to be badly at odds with the uniformitarianist perspective.I'm posting this, with a relation to my current message at the "YEC Geologic Column - Created With Apparent Age?" topic, at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=25&m=22#22Any comments on uniformitarianism, TB?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Bumpity, bumpity, bump!See the earliest messages of this topic also.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Please read from the beginning. I'm proud of this topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Buz has brought up uniformitarianism in message 10 of the new "What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?" topic.Thus I think that this topic needs reviving. I encourage interested parties to read the topic starting at message 1. Message 1 is mostly a big textbook quotation by me, but I think it's a very good quotation.Moose

Uniformitarianism has been coming up elsewhere.At the Seashells on tops of mountains topic, TheWay included the following: Moose

From the "Conclusion vs Presupposition" topic, message 76: The presupposition behind uniformatarianism it essentially that the laws of physics operated in the past as they do in the present. Do you prefer the presupposition that natural processes in the past were operating in some sort of hyperdrive?Mooseps.- It would probably be a good thing for you to read the beginning portion of this topic. The recent part has tended to be rather disconnected from the real theme.

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for ” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose