Why is uniformitarianim still taught?

Not sure why Uniformitarianism shouldn't be taught. Do we have any reason to assume that physical constants weren't the same in the past as they are today?[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-19-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I thought uniformitarianism referred to the general consistency of the processes themselves, like sedimentation or glaciation. I didn't think uniformitarianism proposed that these processes had never been interrupted even once throughout history.I mean, an upthrust in a geological plate can create mountains that later get eroded away. This has happened many times in the Grand Canyon area, I've read. This doesn't mean that there's no uniformity to the processes of sedimentation or erosion.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-19-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

the historical processes shaping our earth included sudden massive upheavals

---

Yeah, so? Does that mean that the laws of physics, the decay rates of elements, gravitational pull, or the rotation of the Earth changed? A volcano or an asteroid does not nullify the consistency of these processes. The assumption of uniformitarianism is the reason we know about such upheavals in the first place.I agree with the statement, "Uniformitarianism is the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at present are sufficient to account for all geologic change." What processes weren't working during the upheavals? Or are upheavals not acting today?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I'm not aware of any creationist who doesn't believe that gradual, consistent processes account for the lion's share of observable geological features. I also don't know of any evolutionist who would deny that some catastrophes have occurred and continue to occur. Evidently we're not allowed to ask T-girl what her opinion is, so I assume she's just playing devil's advocate.But what counts as a catastrophe, anyway? Does glaciation count since the process has only happened several times, or is it too gradual to be considered an upheaval? Is continental drift a consistent process, or is it catastrophical since it caused India to crash into Asia?regards,
Esteban "Manx" Hambre