Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

There are many ways to define uniformitarianism ("U" hereafter). Lyell described U as sedimentation and geologic structures accumulating at steady rates. This, of course, was thrown out when catastrophic processes were recognized and better understood. This was strictly a geologic term though. Strangely enough, punctuated equilibria is anything but stead rates of evolution, so evolution really doesn't even fit into this loosely defined geologic term.The second way that U is used is to describe constant physical laws through history. This is no in contradiction to evidence. In fact, all of the evidence we have points to constant physical laws throughout the 13.7 billion year history of our universe. That is what creationists do, not scientists. Creationists are the group who constantly conflates evolution with the origin of life and the universe. It is scientists who continually correct them on this error. They didn't discard it. They followed the evidence. If Genesis is true then the evidence would have supported it. It didn't.In fact, most of the earliest geologists went out into the field looking for evidence of a young earth and Noah's Deluge. They found just the opposite. They found literal mountains of evidence for an ancient Earth (millions to billions of years old) and absolutely no evidence of a recent global flood. A literal interpretation of Genesis could actually be said to be the impetus for much of geology in the late 1700's to early 1800's. It was far from ignored. It just happend to be wrong. By the time Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution a literal Genesis had long been refuted.Perhaps you could explain to us why a refuted creation myth (when interpreted literally) should be forced into a scientific theory? How does Genesis improve our knowledge of life's history? What creation scientists are using Genesis as the basis for original scientific research? Why don't we ever hear of creationists digging up fossils out in the field? Why is all of their effort put into propoganda and anti-science tracts?The truth of the matter is that science came to the conclusion of slowly developing life, an ancient Earth, and a lack of a recent global flood by following the evidence. Why is that a problem? That seems like the very definition of science to me. They aren't. I think you are seeing persecution where there is none.

Trying to stay with the topic . . .The Theory of Evolution states that species in the past changed through mechanisms we can observe in the present. That is, the present is the key to the past. That is uniformitarianism. We can observe random mutations being filtered through natural selection in the here and now. There is every reason that this occurred in the past. The evidence is consistent with these mechanisms operating in the past. This is solid scientific theory.Creationism on the other hand is not even a historical truth. It is a religious belief. "Creation science" is a broad claim that there is testable and repeatable evidence that a literal Genesis is true, but creation science fails every test. It is a falsified scientific theory and holds nothing that could be called truth, historical or scientific, in a literal sense. Using your analogy, the theory we have here is that water is wet. Everywhere we test this theory it produces accurate predictions. Every time we test the theory that water is wet it turns out to be wet.This is the case for evolution. The theory makes tons of testable predictions, and when those predictions are tested they turn out to be accurate. For example, the theory makes the testable prediction that animals should fall into a nested hierarchy, both fossil and living. That prediction is quite easy to test. We should not find a living or fossil species that has three middle ear bones and feathers. The theory predicts that we should only see specific intermediates and not others, and that is exactly what we observe.

Could you explain the difference between historical truth and scientific truth? They both require empirical evidence, do they not?

It remains a well supported observation. By testing it against the evidence. As it stands, the evidence demonstrates that species share a common ancestor, the Earth is quite old, the Universe even older, and a complete lack of a recent global flood.How else do you think truth is determined? Nowhere does the scientific method require us to repeat past events. We don't have to re-animate a corpse and witness the defendant killing the victim once again in order for forensic science to work.What the scientific method requires is that experiments produce repeatable results. That's it. Therefore, forensic science can repeatedly sequence DNA found at a crime scene to see if it matches the defendant's DNA. Never does science require a repeat of the actual crime, only a repeatable result from the DNA analysis. We repeatedly measure ratios of isotopes in rocks that are not consistent with a young earth. We repeatedly find shared genetic markers between species that can only be explained by shared ancestry. We repeatedly see fossils that have a mixture of traits consistent with a transitional state. We repeatedly see no interruption of sedimentary deposition consistent with a lack of a global flood. Creationism is falsifiable, and it has been falsified.

I think everyone has noticed. It certainly isn't the first time I have seen someone try to do this. It's almost like watching someone try to change the rules of golf half way through a match when it becomes apparent that they are getting their ass handed to them.It is also seen in the opening post. They try to twist and misrepresent uniformitarianism to make evolution not look like science and creatoinism look like science.

I completely disagree. If we are here due to the impersonal, non-teleological, stochastic workings of the laws of physics then the only purpose to life that there is is what we invent for ourselves. I think that is extremely important to understand, don't you?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Christopher HitchensIt is your job to "prove" the Bible. It is not my job to disprove it. Yes, it can. We are the end product of 13+ billion years of natural occurences that are guided by blind laws of nature. We are as much the goal of the universe as the Moon or the asteroid Ceres. The purpose of man is the same as the purpose of Jupiter or Alpha Centauri. What teleological purpose we do find is the purpose we invent for ourselves. If history has shown us anything it is that truth can not be found throuhg mental effort alone. Rationalism lost out to Empiricism, and for good reason. Truth is obtained from reality, not mental effort. Our models of how the world works is not tested by common sense, but by empirical testing. Does it make sense that light can act as both a particle and a wave? Absolutely not, and yet it does. As it turns out, many aspects of reality are counter-intuitive. They run against human rationale. That is why it can not be trusted. That is why we test our claims against reality.

Then there is no compelling reason for me to think that it is accurate. Then it makes me wonder what convinced you that the Bible is accurate given that these events have not transpired by your own admission.