uniformitarianism
According to Wikipedia:
Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past
This is the basis of much of today's physical science. It is presented in most basic geology and physical science classes, often as one of the first laws of science. In my experience, there is little discussion about this word. However, even the basic definition given above is flawed. It claims that uniformitarianism is "observation" -- but then it applies that observation to the distant past. That's not possible. Uniformitarianism says that everything you see happening today has always happened. In other words, it say that the rate at which water flows downhill is constant and has never changed. It presumes all physical laws, such as the speed of light, are what they are and have never been different. It presumes that gravity has always been at the exact rate it is today. Now this rule certainly seems simple. In your lifetime, I'm sure that you can observe the same physical rules happening over and over again. You can observe the sedimentation rate of sediment in a stream. You can easily make predictions of ocean currents, rates of erosion, and many other related observations. This is what modern science has done -- made observations and tested them to see if they hold true. They have found many laws that apply to various physical characteristics that always hold true -- as long as they are tested. The same experiments always give the same results because the rules do not change. To me, I see this as rather self-centered. Just because physical rules have not changed in your lifetime, or even in the last hundred or two hundred years of observation does not mean they have never been different. Consider for a moment, what if this rule isn't true? What if all the currently discovered laws of physics haven't always been true? What if, at some time thousands of years ago, gravity was different? What if the laws of thermodynamics have only applied for two thousand years? What if gravity didn't exist 5,000 years ago? ALL of today's science is based on a complete and total belief in uniformitarianism. If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything? Now there's no direct evidence that refutes uniformitarianism -- just as there is no direct evidence that uniformitarianism is true. It's just presented and accepted as fact, without debate. But what if it's wrong? There actually now are some scientists that claim that this may be the case. They describe that the speed of light -- the basis of much of physics -- might not actually be constant. What if all the physical processes we see today were actually different at some time in the past?
Comments
1
Berry Setterfield and Trevor Norman have been saying that light is slowing down for years. Ever since the speed of light was determined to be finite in the 17th century, people have been measuring its speed. Even accounting for margins of error, the observed speeds have been declining ever since, and seem to be leveling off now (the bottom of the curve).
The "scientific community" is resisting the evidence with every fiber of their being, since the speed of light is the basis for so many calcuations, including radiological dating. If light is slowing down, so is radiological decay, which would mean that ages are actually much shorter than are measured.
This is one of the many reasons I have given up on naturalism and evolution. It doesn't take things like this into accout, and actually chastises anyone who raises the question. And science is supposed to be about asking questions.
The "scientific community" is resisting the evidence with every fiber of their being, since the speed of light is the basis for so many calcuations, including radiological dating. If light is slowing down, so is radiological decay, which would mean that ages are actually much shorter than are measured.
This is one of the many reasons I have given up on naturalism and evolution. It doesn't take things like this into accout, and actually chastises anyone who raises the question. And science is supposed to be about asking questions.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at September 13, 2005 04:34 PM (K+h36)
2
You hit it on the head -- those who support naturalism and evolution will not even consider asking questions. So much just has to be accepted -- even more than having faith in a creator, if you ask me. I'm just trying to get people to acknowledge that questions can be asked.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 05:02 PM (iJFc9)
3
Ogre, I'm disappointed. "Those who support naturalism and evolution will not even consider asking questions." That is a very bold and unsupported statement. I know many individuals, including myself, that support naturalism and evolution that do ask questions. We base our decisions on information on hand Theories, tests and data.
I can't believe you of all people would make such an inaccurate statement when you lambast others that do the same thing.
Being narrow minded is a two way street.
I can't believe you of all people would make such an inaccurate statement when you lambast others that do the same thing.
Being narrow minded is a two way street.
Posted by: Contagion at September 13, 2005 08:52 PM (e8b4J)
4
Sorry, I misspoke.
What I meant was that those who initially created and supported naturalism and the naturalistic theory created their theory intentionally to refute intelligent design and creationism, and would not permit any questioning of their theory.
Sorry about that, I didn't mean to point it to all current supporters of naturalism.
What I meant was that those who initially created and supported naturalism and the naturalistic theory created their theory intentionally to refute intelligent design and creationism, and would not permit any questioning of their theory.
Sorry about that, I didn't mean to point it to all current supporters of naturalism.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 08:55 PM (iJFc9)
5
Brilliant Post - not too many people are posting on this topic. It's a simple post hoc fallacy that you've uncovered in the last few paragraphs. I know your readers will take away that salient point. Great Post! Great Blog - dig the graphics!
Posted by: patd95 at September 13, 2005 09:39 PM (/KuBm)
6
Thanks for stopping by, Patd95! One of my main points on this site it to make people think.
Posted by: Ogre at September 13, 2005 10:02 PM (iJFc9)
7
I don't mind questioning, as long as there's a good reason to do so.
I don't understand astrophysics well enough to know if they have a good reason, or if this is just another "cold fusion" moment.
I don't understand astrophysics well enough to know if they have a good reason, or if this is just another "cold fusion" moment.
Posted by: Harvey at September 15, 2005 08:40 PM (ubhj8)
8
So you have those, too, huh?
Posted by: Ogre at September 16, 2005 05:46 AM (iJFc9)
9
The sound bite you reference is overly simplistic and misleading. If you read scholarly work in geology (e.g., Gould's publications on the topic published in the American Journal of Science, in the 1980's), you will find that Uniformitarianism is NOT treated as a law. There are many facets to uniformitarianism. The gradualism of Lyell is not something accepted by geologists, but is a matter to be tested in individual situations. "the present is the key to the past", means e.g., "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, delta sediments of the past probably formed in environments similar to where we find delta sediments forming today". If there is evidence to the contrary, this principle is abandoned. It is a only principle, and clearly does not hold in many cases discussed commonly in the geological literature (e.g., mass extinction events by e.g., bolide impact). The methodological uniformitarianism you refer to, re: the rate of radioactivie decay, F=ma, etc, again is just common sense (and, that is all science really is, anyway - at least the way I have practiced it): if there is no reason to believe that Newton's Laws or the speed of light have not varied significantly over time, then assume they have been constant. This is a warrant for inductive inference. Without this, you could not be sure your house did not turn into a circus overnight! It is really just Occam's razor - the principle of parsimony. Common Sense.
Your comments about the constancy of the speed of light refelct one other element of common sense that your consideration decidedly lacks: extraordinary propositions require extraordinary evidence. This was true for Darwin's ideas in the 1859, and it is true now about challenging relativistic physics.
Peace,
Individ
Your comments about the constancy of the speed of light refelct one other element of common sense that your consideration decidedly lacks: extraordinary propositions require extraordinary evidence. This was true for Darwin's ideas in the 1859, and it is true now about challenging relativistic physics.
Peace,
Individ
Posted by: Individ at September 16, 2005 11:21 PM (SRudZ)
10
You're correct -- and that's my point. Uniformitarianism is generally accepted. There may never be any way to prove if it is true or not, so it's just accepted. even mass extinction events presume that it is true.
I'm not suggesting that I have any evidence that shows it's not true, I'm just speculating -- what if it's NOT true? There is, quite obviously, no way to prove it's true, just as there's no way to prove it's NOT true.
There does seem to be some evidence that's showing up today that shows the speed of light might not be a constant. If it's not, then this idea might not be right -- which means a very large portion of the accepted history of the earth might be completely, scientifically verifiably, wrong!
In general, and in specific scientific readings, there are almost no refernces to any suggestions that uniformitarianism is wrong, or even questioned -- it is always just accepted. Even reading Gould's work, as I have many times, I've not seen it questioned -- if you know of any, I would like to read them.
I'm not suggesting that I have any evidence that shows it's not true, I'm just speculating -- what if it's NOT true? There is, quite obviously, no way to prove it's true, just as there's no way to prove it's NOT true.
There does seem to be some evidence that's showing up today that shows the speed of light might not be a constant. If it's not, then this idea might not be right -- which means a very large portion of the accepted history of the earth might be completely, scientifically verifiably, wrong!
In general, and in specific scientific readings, there are almost no refernces to any suggestions that uniformitarianism is wrong, or even questioned -- it is always just accepted. Even reading Gould's work, as I have many times, I've not seen it questioned -- if you know of any, I would like to read them.
Posted by: Ogre at September 17, 2005 08:50 AM (iJFc9)
11
So is it weathering, sediment depositing, radioactive decay of elements, tree ring growth or what that you feel was so much faster in the past? Since so many of these geological dating methods (and others) overlap and yet corroborate each other (dating methods from biology like gene mutation rates also happening to conspire in favor of the modern scientific time line), it seems that you would need to assume that every process in geology , biology and physics was faster in the past in order to make the young earth foolishness stick.
"If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything?"
Even if that were true, is it really so likely that all of the engineering feats that are based on the laws of physics, from bridge construction to oil rigs (they find oil and mineral wealth by using modern geology and its dating methods are an important part of that methodology) to nuclear power plants are working on principles that really are just guesses and hunches by people who spend their lives studying things that are just all made up?
Is it not more likely that people who complain about naturalism and uniformitarianism (the inconvenient properties of the natural world) are just trying in vain to salvage a pack of tribal myths which they take as fact rather than as simply sacred stories; myths which, if they were told by people with dark skin, would have been laughed at as primitive tales?
Staffs don't turn into snakes and eat each other even if you are a prophet from God or an Egyptian magician. Snakes do not talk. Donkeys do not talk. A world covering flood would not leave a pristine ecosystem for rescued species to flourish in. The world is not 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Con-men and cult leaders put on faith healer shows all the time so why is it so hard to believe that this happened 2000 years ago?
Is hanging on to an ontology from thousands of years ago so important that people are willing to believe anything in order to salvage them? Why are people willing to believe that every field of inquiry... astronomy, geology, genetics, ecology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, archeology to name just a few, are practiced by either complete morons or conspirators? Most of these scientists are from western culture and many of them are Christians themselves. Is it really likely that they have all been, and continue to be hoodwinked into ignoring the "reality" of a literal Bible? And that only a few brave souls dare decry the falsehood by rewriting those laws of physics which they find inconvenient?
"If uniformitarianism isn't completely, 100% true, a large portion of "known" science might not be true, too. Just consider it -- what are the possibilities if man simply cannot know everything?"
Even if that were true, is it really so likely that all of the engineering feats that are based on the laws of physics, from bridge construction to oil rigs (they find oil and mineral wealth by using modern geology and its dating methods are an important part of that methodology) to nuclear power plants are working on principles that really are just guesses and hunches by people who spend their lives studying things that are just all made up?
Is it not more likely that people who complain about naturalism and uniformitarianism (the inconvenient properties of the natural world) are just trying in vain to salvage a pack of tribal myths which they take as fact rather than as simply sacred stories; myths which, if they were told by people with dark skin, would have been laughed at as primitive tales?
Staffs don't turn into snakes and eat each other even if you are a prophet from God or an Egyptian magician. Snakes do not talk. Donkeys do not talk. A world covering flood would not leave a pristine ecosystem for rescued species to flourish in. The world is not 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Con-men and cult leaders put on faith healer shows all the time so why is it so hard to believe that this happened 2000 years ago?
Is hanging on to an ontology from thousands of years ago so important that people are willing to believe anything in order to salvage them? Why are people willing to believe that every field of inquiry... astronomy, geology, genetics, ecology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, archeology to name just a few, are practiced by either complete morons or conspirators? Most of these scientists are from western culture and many of them are Christians themselves. Is it really likely that they have all been, and continue to be hoodwinked into ignoring the "reality" of a literal Bible? And that only a few brave souls dare decry the falsehood by rewriting those laws of physics which they find inconvenient?
Posted by: Ann K. at September 17, 2005 11:10 PM (pcRow)
12
Ann, you missed my point. I did not say any one of those was faster OR SLOWER in the past. All of those processes, do, however, depend 100% on on the theory of uniformitarianism. I simply asked the question, "What if we're wrong?"
And no, nothing based on today's laws of physics need to be wrong if we're wrong about the past. They're completely unreleated.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about God, YOU did.
YOU are simply decided that everything you are told by scientists today is absolute truth. I bet you would have blindly defended the scientists that were positive that earth was flat, and other scientists of their day that were absolutely sure that the sun revolved around the earth, too.
I just tried to ask one simple question about science, and you violently attacked me making assumptions about me and attacking others' religions. How about opening your mind?
And no, nothing based on today's laws of physics need to be wrong if we're wrong about the past. They're completely unreleated.
I never mentioned ANYTHING about God, YOU did.
YOU are simply decided that everything you are told by scientists today is absolute truth. I bet you would have blindly defended the scientists that were positive that earth was flat, and other scientists of their day that were absolutely sure that the sun revolved around the earth, too.
I just tried to ask one simple question about science, and you violently attacked me making assumptions about me and attacking others' religions. How about opening your mind?
Posted by: Ogre at September 18, 2005 09:11 AM (iJFc9)
13
Oh, and Contagion? Note Ann as the more typical reaction from a naturalist, as I was speaking of in comment #2.
Posted by: Ogre at September 18, 2005 09:12 AM (iJFc9)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0087 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0069 seconds, 21 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.