Uniformitarianism: A Matter of Faith

[Punchy]

It is an assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past. This belief might be necessary to make modern science possible but it is, nonetheless, a matter of faith. Any good scientist should be willing to admit that scientific objectivity is a myth. Research is not possible without the presuppositions that guide it.

Peace.

 

[Deamiter]

lol, well any good scientist will tell you that we ASSUME that what we observe is an accurate representation of what exists. That is all.

Scientists throughout the centuries have challeneged uniformitarianism in all sorts of fields. as a physicist, I'm most familiar with the rather disruptive conclusion that the universe is not static but expanding. The Big Bang theory was actually supported strongly by the majority of the Church because it allows for a time of creation... until the early 1900s when this YEC became promenant.

Anyway, it is not possible for any scientist to be 100% objective (human fallability and everything) but the presumption of uniformitarianism is not an a priori assumption. In each field it's been tested and retested, and it is actually a conclusion, not an assumption.

Do feel free to bring up specific cases you think have not been investigated if you think I'm wrong about different cases of a concluded unchanging mechanism have NOT been supported by evidence.

 

[Punchy]

In each field it's been tested and retested, and it is actually a conclusion, not an assumption.

Please elaborate.

 

[Mallon]

As far as I'm concerned, Ecclesiastes 1 is one of the best Bible passages in support of uniformitarianism. Indeed, the YEC insistance that the creation days were 24 hours long, as they are today, requires uniformitarianism to be true.

Really, we wouldn't be able to get through life if energy and matter didn't behave in some uniform, predictable manner.

 

[Punchy]

Really, we wouldn't be able to get through life if energy and matter didn't behave in some predictable manner.

What does this have to do with the belief that the natural world was formed by the natural processes observed in the present?

 

[Mallon]

What does this have to do with the belief that the natural world was formed by the natural processes observed in the present?

What DOESN'T it have to do with it?
If tomorrow water began behaving like mercury at room temperature, and the earth stopped spinning, where would we be?
Ad hoc attempts to defend a literal Genesis by invoking untestable claims that we can't trust our eyes because the world's constants and properties are always changing are both dishonest and, arguably, unbiblical.
It's easy to say "things were different." But if you want to be taken seriously, you have to say how they were different.

 

[Punchy]

Ad hoc attempts to defend a literal Genesis by invoking untestable claims that we can't trust our eyes because the world's constants and properties are always changing are both dishonest and, arguably, unbiblical.

The Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

2 Peter 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

 

[Deamiter]

Please elaborate.

Well it really depends on what field you're talking about. Scientists don't assume that everything has been constant over the last few billion years. They've proposed changes in expansion rates, changes in environments, and even closely examined the possibilities of changes in what have become established as universal constants.

Is there a natural process you had in mind when you said that it is assumed that the natural processes that exist now existed in the past? In geology, astronomy, and paleontology (to cite a few examples) there is evidence that the same physical mechanisms that work today have been present as far back as we can find evidence.

Creationists often cite the possibility of changing decay rates when questioning radiological dating. They don't seem to recognize that there is literally no way that decay rates could have changed without making the earth uninhabitable. Correlating decay rates with yearly tree rings, varves and layers in ice cores have allowed independent verification of the dating methods.

That's just one example, but I'd rather not go off on a tangent if you were citing something totally different in your vague comment about how you think scientists assume uniformitarianism.

 

[Punchy]

That's just one example, but I'd rather not go off on a tangent if you were citing something totally different in your vague comment about how you think scientists assume uniformitarianism.

Let's focus on the crucial aspect of uniformitarianism that we are discussing, the assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past. Again, the Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.

 

[metherion]

How long ago does it have to be before the assumption that things were uniform becomes challenged? 10 years ago? 20? 100? 500? 1000? 2000? 3000? 6000? What changed, and how long did it change for, how fast did it change, and what did it change to? Why or why not were things changed? Where in (whatever source you use, presumably the Bible) was it changed?

Simply stating "Things were different" isn't enough. If no alternatives or clarifications or ANYTHING are presented along with it, the idea won't work or carry any weight.

Also, read what Deamiter says. Not only did he ask which processes you were talking about, but gave an example in the hopes of being somewhat on topic. If you aren't going to do anything but repeat the same thing with no clarification, hoping we have enough interest to stick around and guess randomly until we say exactly what you want us to probably won't work.

Metherion

 

[Punchy]

Not only did he ask which processes you were talking about, but gave an example in the hopes of being somewhat on topic.

Let's focus on the crucial aspect of uniformitarianism that we are discussing, the assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past. Again, the Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.

Given that this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere, mostly due to the failure to understand the difference between a world created ex nihilo and a world created by natural processes observed in the present, I direct you to the discussion already in progress in the crevo forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5224752-uniformitarianism-a-matter-of-faith.html

Peace.

 

[Deamiter]

Let's focus on the crucial aspect of uniformitarianism that we are discussing, the assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past. Again, the Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.

Lets focus even further. I can't discuss every scientific conclusion and assumption in a single post! Do you want to discuss creation or a proposed global flood? Since scientists have concluded that the environment in an area has been changing, or that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, how can you claim a blanket "scientists assume uniformitarianism?" Shouldn't you mention at least ONE assumption that you have an issue with instead of making me list evidnece for specific conclusions that scientists have made while you dismiss them with "we're not getting anywhere because you don't understand ex nihilo creation." Fine, I don't understand your point of view? Explain it to me in detail (or explain even a small part of it we could discuss in detail) instead of simply repeating your claim that I'm wrong because I don't understand your point of view!

In both of the above cases, the evidence looks EXACTLY as we would expect if the same processes working today were working then. The emission and absorption lines in light that has propagated across the universe shows that however long it's been propagating, the processes of radiation have not changed. Now since the stars are millions and billions of lightyears away, scientists can conclude that radiation has not changed over this period.

Of course, if you claim that the universe is only 6000 years old, then you are left with the evidence that somehow light moved faster than it does today, but that doesn't change the fact that the emission and absorption lines are EXACTLY the same as they are today. This shows that even if you make the a priori assumption that the universe is no more than 6000 years old, the processes that govern radioactive decay today were the same when the light was emitted (i.e. 6000 years ago).

The other option is that God created the light to only LOOK like it came from stars that used the same processes as today. If you want to discuss the Oomphalos argument, just say so, but it's been pretty strongly defeated in mainstream Christianity for hundreds of years now.

Evidence regarding a flood is similar. We know how floods deposit material so we can look for evidence of a flood. We also see things like huge termite mounds that take decades to grow, or multiple layers of fossilized tree stumps that still have their rootlets fixed in the sedement in which they were buried (showing that they were never uprooted). Again, all the evidence points to well-understood mechanisms that produced these features. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that these termite mounds were miraculously poofed into the middle of flood sedements or that worm burrows that take years to construct were created in only seconds as thousands of tons of sedement rained down on each successive burrow.

You claim you want to discuss uniformitarianism. Are you going to continue to hide behind vague statements or should we get to some specific assumptions you claim are unfounded? The bottom line is that you are in error in claiming that the Bible teaches creation 6000 years ago when the truth is that these accounts were never intended as historical. Creation Ex Nihilo is a bit more vague as it could certainly encompass the current scientific concensus of the Big Bang.

What you have utterly failed to do is give textual, cultural or even scientific evidence that any SPECIFIC conclusion about the past is unfounded. All you've done is claim that there are some assumptions that contradict the Bible. Let's get down to details -- I've mentioned a few specifics that creationists often bring up. If you don't like them, bring up your own.

Give us a specific scientific conclusion you disagree with, and perhaps physical evidence, textual analysis or cultural reasons why this conclusion contradicts your interpretation of the Bible. Then I think this thread can get somewhere. Just saying, "uniformitarianism is against the Bible" is useless because you haven't shown that scientists have made this assumption (rather than concluding it based on evidence) and you haven't show how or even shown that the Bible contradicts uniformitarianism. I'm spending quite a bit of time trying to respond to this thread. If you don't like my responses, please just put in a little work yourself detailing what you're claiming so my next detailed post isn't responding to another vague comment.

 

[Assyrian]

The Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo and that a global catastrophic event took place. Both assertions are diametrically opposed to the uniformitarian understanding of earth history.

Hebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

He just doesn't say when...

2 Peter 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

To get a global flood out of this, what you need to show is that the word 'world' (kosmos) in NT Greek actually referred to the globe. In fact in 2Peter 3 Peter describes the creation of the earth and its destruction by fire using the word ge the earth. When he describes the flood in this chapter, he switches to the word kosmos. 'The kosmos of the ungoldy' in 2Pet 2:5, appears to refer to the godless civilisation Noah lived in rather than the whole planet.

 

[gluadys]

The Scriptures make the claim that all things were created ex nihilo

Not in the sense that each individual component of the universe was created from nothing. In Genesis 1 God specifically commands the earth to produce vegetation, so plants were not created directly from nothing, but from the earth. In Genesis 2, it explicity says that God made a man from the dust of the earth, not directly from nothing. Also God specifically commanded the reproduction of living things, so that direct creation from nothing is not the way any living thing today has come into being.

Creation ex nihilo does not mean that each and every thing was made from nothing, and therefore is not incompatible with the production of current geological and biological forms from predecessors via natural processes.

and that a global catastrophic event took place.

That the flood was global is an interpretation of the biblical text that could only be imposed on it after the discovery that the earth is a globe. It is not an interpretation required by the biblical text.

 

[lucaspa]

It is an assumption that natural processes as observed in the present were responsible for how the natural world was formed in the past.

Sorry, but uniformitarianism is NOT an "assumption". It is a conclusion derived by looking at the evidence.

Uniformitarianism could easily have been falsified IF we had found particular data in nature.

Also, remember that Lyell was the one that published much of the data that defeated catastrophism and established modern geology (in his Principles of Geology), but Lyell was also a Special Creationist.

Any good scientist should be willing to admit that scientific objectivity is a myth. Research is not possible without the presuppositions that guide it.

I'm a "good scientist" and say "scientific objectivity" is not a myth.

In any search for truth, there are assumptions that must be made. Christianity and science share these assumptions. In fact, it was the fact that Christianity had these assumptions that permitted the birth of modern science.

However, uniformitarianism is not one of the assumptions.

 

[Deamiter]

lucaspa has a good point about objectivity. True objectivity may be impossible as we can never fully remove ourselves from our assumptions and preferences. However, part of science is recording the assumptions made and making conclusions based on the data AND on those assumptions. In that way true objectivity is possible.

Uniformitarianism is not a blanket assumption made by scientists in any field. I've shown a few of the ways we've verified that processes have not changed as well as some cases where scientists showed that processes have changed, so it would not be accurate to say that uniformitarianism is a blanket assumption in science.

That said, such an accusation only makes sense in light of a specific case. If you truly think uniformitarianism is assumed throughout science, it shouldn't be hard to come up with one or two specific examples we can examine!

I suggest that your basic premise is flawed. We do not assume that processes have not changed, and where scientists claim such a thing it is based on evidence. For the third time now, I'd love to go into details so we can make more than vague blanket statements.