Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 70 (1999)
01-12-2002 11:07 PM


From "Evolution of the Earth", 2nd Edition, Robert H. Dott, Jr. & Roger L. Batten, McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp.38-39
THE DOCTRINE OF UNIFORMITY TODAY
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. 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.
Moose
ps. 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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 1:22 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 70 (2002)
01-12-2002 11:50 PM


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 thought
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-13-2002 5:16 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 70 (2021)
01-13-2002 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
01-12-2002 11:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-12-2002 11:50 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 4:05 PM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 9 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-23-2002 1:22 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 70 (2093)
01-14-2002 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
01-13-2002 5:16 PM


When they say uniformitarianism do they mean uniformitarianism or actualism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-13-2002 5:16 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2002 5:18 PM joz has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 70 (2098)
01-14-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by joz
01-14-2002 4:05 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by joz, posted 01-14-2002 4:05 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 01-14-2002 6:20 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 6 of 70 (2103)
01-14-2002 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
01-14-2002 5:18 PM


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.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2002 5:18 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 01-15-2002 2:59 PM Percy has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 70 (2198)
01-15-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
01-14-2002 6:20 PM


Hmm that might raise a problem in that while I say I naturalistic I mean exhausing possible natural explanations rather than automatic gainsaying of the supernatural....
Is there a better term than naturalistic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 01-14-2002 6:20 PM Percy has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 8 of 70 (2319)
01-17-2002 1:34 AM


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

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 9 of 70 (2690)
01-23-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
01-13-2002 5:16 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-13-2002 5:16 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 70 (2762)
01-25-2002 4:32 PM


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?
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 4:43 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-25-2002 11:49 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 70 (2764)
01-25-2002 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 4:32 PM


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.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 01-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 4:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 5:05 PM joz has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 70 (2767)
01-25-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by joz
01-25-2002 4:43 PM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 01-25-2002 4:43 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 01-26-2002 8:15 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 05-21-2002 8:26 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 13 of 70 (2791)
01-25-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
01-25-2002 4:32 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 4:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 12:42 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 70 (2792)
01-26-2002 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Minnemooseus
01-25-2002 11:49 PM


"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).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-25-2002 11:49 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 15 of 70 (2935)
01-26-2002 7:59 PM


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.
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2002 8:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024