Specifically, I am interested in how Creationists define it. I have seen the term used often here.

I will let the creationists speak for themselves on how they define the term.

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the laws of the nature operated the same in the past as in the present, and the concommitant notion that processes observed today may hold the answer to questions about how astronomical, geological, and biological features formed in the past came to be.

Actually it also originally meant that the past rates of the processes could be assumed to be the same as observed today, but this part of the definition appears to have been dropped some time ago.

Nevertheless, this idea still persists to some extent in things like mutation rates.

Rach I am moving this thread since you indicated you only wanted creationist response. QED, I know you posted before it was moved, so no problem there.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Undisclosed

Joe, the thread starter requested creationist participation. You are not a creationist. I had moved this thread to the creationist portion of the forum. Please do not post in this thread. Thank you. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

According to Hutton, it meant that present day processes MUST be used to explain the past (Hutton, J., ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965):

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’

It was an a priori decree on his part that determined his interpretation of the data. E.g. we observe rivers slowly eroding their banks, so this slow erosion must account for a number of features, not the catastrophic erosion of something like a global Flood.

But because of the strong evidence for catastrophism in the past, nowadays "uniformitarianism" has been redefined to include constancy of natural laws rather than process rates.

Actually, it was not my intention to stop anyone from answering, but I can see how my initial post could have been interpreted that way.

From what I've seen, YECs used the term to imply that *uniformitarian* geologists do not recognize catastrophic processes. Is that a fair appraisal?

Rach, I see that you would like to open the field to all to answer. I will move the thread back then to its original area so that can be done. I apologize for misconstruing your original intention to simply hear the opinions of creationists only on your post (and I did not realize at the time you were not one yourself).

Any chance of recovering my comments on uniformitarianism to post here?

Many Thanks

Joe Meert

Sure, I saved it just in case, as I had stated, you wanted to post it here...

Socrates (in another thread) made several common mistakes regarding Uniformitarianism. There are several key pieces of information that are important to clarify and expand upon. The first is that Hutton did not coin the term “uniformitarianism”. The term “uniformitarian” is based on the Lyellian view of earth history. Of course, the ideas forwarded by Lyell had their roots in the work of Hutton. Hutton would be classified as an old earth creationist in today’s vernacular. He noted the process of fluvial erosion and deposition, recognized the importance of igneous processes and attributed these the work of a divine creator. He argued that the erosion cycle, superficially destructive, was the divine solution to the creation of new land. Hutton recognized catastrophes, but argued that they had little power in shaping the land when compared to erosion. Nevertheless, next to the Noachian diluvialists, Hutton’s ideas regarding the land rising out of the sea, is one of the most geologically catastrophic events ever proposed. Lyell, also recognized the cyclic nature of erosion and it is Lyell’s views that became known as uniformitarianism. However, it is incorrect to pretend that catastrophes had no place in Lyellian geology. Lyell’s claim was that catastrophes happened at the same frequency in the past as they did in the present. Lyell recognized that volcanoes erupted and that floods and earthquakes also helped shape the land, but they were simply expressions of a long-term uniformity of process. Most other workers of that period also recognized catastrophes (e.g. De la Beche and Cuvier) and Lyell’s stance was viewed as extreme by other scientists of the time. The concept of uniformitarianism is useful in historical discussions of earth science, but it was long, long ago recognized that actualism is a better description of how the earth works. We can indeed, use the present as a key to the past keeping in mind that the rates, intensity and frequency of these events may have been different in the past. The oft-made assertion that uniformitarianism did not include or recognize catastrophes is simply false. There are several good books out there including both Hutton’s and Lyell’s manuscripts on the subject. Greene (1982) provides a comprehensive summary of the times and the views of geologists during those times in his book “Geology in the 19th Century: Changing views in a changing world”.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Joe did an excellent job of describing how mainstream geologists define and use uniformitarianism.

I am still waiting for a reply to my last question.

Is it fair to say that, according to YECs, *uniformitarian* geologists do not recognize catastrophic processes? As suggested by Austin in his Mt. Saint Helen's paper (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm).

Good summary of the uniformatarian/catastrophism situation Joe. I'd just like to add a few more things.


The doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced geological ideas in the 17th and 18th centuries. Catastrophists believed features like mountains and canyons were created primarily in very rapid construction events, sometimes of world-wide scope. The causes were presumed to be unknowable and to be no longer active in modern times. This philosophy was an attempt to fit the geologic knowledge at the time with what was believed to be the age of the Earth. That number was based on Ussher's Biblical chronology. Both scientists of the time and theologians accepted this number as fact. But the work of Hutton and Lyell showed catastrophism did not explain the data.

One influenece you forgot to mention was John Playfair. Hutton wrote his book, Theory of the Earth in 1788. But his writing style was extremely difficult to read. You can see an example of this style at http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/Hutton.htm. Playfair presented Hutton's ideas in a much more clear and attractive form in his book, Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory, in1802. However, it is true that the person most responsible for giving Hutton's idea light was Lyell, especially in his master work, Principles of Geology, published in 11 editions between 1830 to 1872.

It must be emphasized again that unformitarianism only means that the geologic processes of the past were much the same as they are now. This is not an assumption, but an observation. Uniformism is not meant to be taken too literally. It does not mean the rates of geological processes were the same in the past as now, nor had they the same relative importance. There were periods for example when vulcanism was more important in shaping the Earth than it is now. Also, in the very earliest periods of Earth's existance, there were certain processes going on that do not occur at all today.