Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism - demonstrated or assumed?
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 1 of 2 (543735)
01-20-2010 11:48 AM


Creationists often complain that evolutionists are wrong to 'assume' uniformitarianism. I've seen it used as a fallback defence when a creationist has no response to particular detailed evidence of evolution.
I'd like to discuss to what extent uniformitarianism is an assumption, or a view justified by evidence.
Here's some background from Wikipedia
quote:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of naturalism, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
I believe it's worth identifying two kinds of uniformitarianism relevant to us (these are my own terms).
Laws and constants - that the laws and constants of nature have remained unchanged since some given time in the past, or have changed only in ways that do not invalidate the theory of evolution or evidence that supports it, such as radiometric dating. Not necessarily from the very beginning, in the context of evolution, but at least from the formation of the solar system about 4.7 billion years ago.
Earth-specific processes - taking the above as established, that processes operating in normal times on earth work the same way now as they did in the past - or vary in known ways - geological examples being plate tectonics, carbon and nitrogen cycles, deposition, volcanism, fossilization, biological examples being mutation, selection, reproduction, recombination, examples from physics being solar radiation flux and cosmic ray flux.
My own interest is primarily in the fundamentals - the laws and constants, and particularly those which are relevant to the age of the earth and dating methods. I'm more relaxed about earth-specific processes - if the fundamentals are established than we can assume that the evidence we have from the distant past about them is trustworthy. Also I believe the conflict between 'uniformitarianism' and 'catastrophism' is over - both apply at different points in the earth's history, and we can tell from evidence when each has been important.
I know there are some quite strong constraints on the fine structure constant, and also that some observations have supported a small change over time. But how strong is the evidence that radioactive decay rates really are the same now as they were in the distant past? Do we have any evidence that the laws themselves have not changed in the last 4.7 billion years?
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 2 (543788)
01-20-2010 3:30 PM


Thread Copied to Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution Forum
Thread copied to the Uniformitarianism - demonstrated or assumed? thread in the Creation/Evolution Miscellany forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024