Re: uniformitarianism from Re: The YECs have won

> bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> 2/25/2005 3:09:12 PM wrote:
<

>> I have also seen the claim that atheists have to be strict
uniformitarians,
>> in the caricature of Lyell sense of assuming past uniformity in things
that
>> don't have constant rates. Not sure why this is supposed to be the case.

> Ted replies:
> Because it makes a really nice straw man to set on fire. Creationist
> history of science is, if anything, even more selective in its
> intepretations than the old "warfare of religion and science" approach.

Both Baumgardner and John Morris set up uniformitarianist straw men in
their respective articles and then proceed to demolish them. For example,
Baumgardner says ...

"This [rapid recent uplift of mountain ranges] presents
a profound difficulty for uniformitarian
thinking because the driving forces responsible
for mountain building are
**assumed to have been operating steadily
at roughly the same slow rates as
observed in today’s world for at least the
 past several hundred million years**.
But the uplift history of today’s mountains is anything but uniformitarian
in character." (emphasis of straw man added).

J. Morris write in this issue's monthly answers page in the "Back to
Genesis" series <http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-195.pdf> ...

"In geology a **controversy prevails concerning
uniformity and catastrophe**. Regarding
mountain building, **uniformity maintains
that the necessary tectonic forces
have always acted, and there should be
mountains of every age**. Catastrophists/
creationists, however, consider mountains
to be largely the result of Noah's Flood,
which first deposited strata, then folded
and eroded them, then later still uplifted
them into modern mountain chains. **Intense
geologic processes were operating
at rates, scales, and intensities, far in excess
of today's 'uniform' norms.**"
 (emphasis of straw men added).

Line 'em up and shoot 'em down. These might be devastating arguments IF
they represented anything close to reality.

Are there disagreements in geology? You bet! That's what makes the field
fun. We see disagreements and 'controversies' as research opportunities --
the unknown frontier-- and not as fatal problems. When geologists quit
disagreeing with each other then we might as well close up shop and declare
our job finished since there is nothing new left to discover.

Steve
[apply usual disclaimer here]
_____________
 Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
 Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
 Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
 Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
 -USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/
Received on Fri Feb 25 16:25:29 2005