Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

It's not clear what you mean by uniformitarianism, but whatever you mean by it, this is no way to reason.If evolution is a form of uniformitarianism (whatever that is) then you still need to show that there is something wrong with evolution specifically. Otherwise what's to stop someone saying: "Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence, except when it comes to evolution, which turns out to be correct. Darwin caught a lucky break there."Don't you see that something's gone terribly wrong when all the argument you have against evolution, a proposition about biology, doesn't involve mentioning a single organism, a single organ, a single fossil, a single bone, a single genome, a single gene, a single scrap of a shred of a scintilla of an iota of information about biology?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Oh look, an unnamed reference to an unnamed source. Very creationist. It would make it much harder to prove that you made the quote up, except for a couple of minor blunders. You say that this person was an astrophysicist. First of all, such a person would have no more idea than a layman about craters on Venus. And second, as "uniformitarianism" is a term of art in the history of geology, and in creationist propaganda, and absolutely nowhere else, an astrophysicist wouldn't use the word 'cos astrophysicists never use that word and most of them have never heard it either. Well, that was very haughty. But then, it is easy to look down on the imaginary people who live in your head. You may find arguing with real people is more difficult.

In that case, PaulGL has turned the actual scientific question completely on its head. While scientists wonder what explains the absence of the craters that aren't there, PaulGL claims that they're at a loss to explain the presence of the craters that are there.

I can't tell what Hawkins is arguing for.