Do Creationists understand scientific terminology? Case in point - uniformitarianism

[gluadys]

Do you agree with the slanderous reference to deliberate con? If not, then why haven't you said anything about that?

Probably not in reference to the particular poster, but as a tactic of creationist organizations, I certainly do agree. They must know better but they perpetuate the error. I cannot help but think it is deliberate.

Since I understood the intent of the poster, I didn't consider it worth correcting, and still don't.

I don't think understanding the intent is the point. The point is educating another poster who used terminology incorrectly and which you knew was being used incorrectly.

Now if you did not know it was incorrect usage, that is a different kettle of fish.

 

[KerrMetric]

Probably not in reference to the particular poster, but as a tactic of creationist organizations, I certainly do agree. They must know better but they perpetuate the error. I cannot help but think it is deliberate.

That was exactly my intent. The poster in the other forum I don't expect to know the terminology. But where they undoubtedly got it from the people do know.

 

[shernren]

Hmmm, I'm supposed to correct everyone -- but you let the "deliberate con" statement stand without correction. Seems like a major double standard, or you agree with the slanderous characterization. Its one thing to say that someone needs a bit more knowledge -- declaring lying or con job is a different level.

As I've said multiple times before, the best discourse is done using the most mature and developed expression of the viewpoints. We can both point to folks who support either viewpoint that do it without complete information -- but that adds nothing to the discussion but name calling.

Why shouldn't at least the possibility of a deliberate con job be considered? KerrMetric only said:

I can only assume that in a typical headlong rush that the term has just been misunderstood OR a deliberate con job is being performed.

You yourself said: In the days of Lyell, special events were not recognized, while modern interpretation allows for a lot more. - you recognized that the meaning of "uniformitarianism" has changed since Lyell's day, and that modern geologists observing (not assuming!) uniformitarianism don't mean the same thing that Lyell did. Therefore, the accurate quote would be "... contrary to the outdated doctrine of Lyellian uniformitarianism (which nobody believes any more)."

So why did the author say what he did? There are only two logical possibilities:

1. He does understand uniformitarianism, and uses the term wrongly deliberately (i.e. ... deliberate con)
2. He doesn't understand uniformitarianism, and uses the term wrongly by accident.

And if you zoom down on option 2:

2a. He knows he doesn't understand uniformitarianism, but represents himself as if he does deliberately (i.e. ... deliberate con)
2b. He doesn't know he doesn't understand uniformitarianism, representing himself as if he does accidentally.

So there are plenty of ways in which this might well be a deliberate con. Right?

 

[Mallon]

Bro, we can go round and round on this and not convince each other. To me, the first chapter of Genesis is very specific in human terms communicating single normal days. If I'm wrong, we'll both know in heaven.

Fair enough. I just want to hear from a YEC that their worldview inevitably depends on uniformitariansm as well. So railing against it really doesn't make much sense.

 

[laptoppop]

Fair enough. I just want to hear from a YEC that their worldview inevitably depends on uniformitariansm as well. So railing against it really doesn't make much sense.

Now I think *you* are misunderstanding the term, sir!

As I understand it, uniformitarianism, while allowing for some local event, would still say that the geologic record is primarily explained in terms of what we see now.

YEC/catastrophisim says that the geologic record is heavily dominated by one (or more ) major catastrophes, and that explains most of the record.

Yes, both use an understanding of current processes and the way things work to try to explain various features, but that is distinct from the overall interpretational paradigm.

 

[Mallon]

Now I think *you* are misunderstanding the term, sir!

Not at all. Uniformitarianism is simply the assumption that the natural processes acting in the past are the same that act today, regardless of whether these be chemical or physical in nature. My point is simply that in order to believe that the length of a day has not changed since the time of Genesis 1, YECs must unwittingly subscribe to uniformitarianism themselves.

 

[gluadys]

Now I think *you* are misunderstanding the term, sir!

As I understand it, uniformitarianism, while allowing for some local event, would still say that the geologic record is primarily explained in terms of what we see now.

And we do see catastrophes now and have plenty of geological evidence of catastrophes in the past. So uniformitarianism does not preclude catastrophes. They are part of uniformitarianism.

YEC/catastrophisim says that the geologic record is heavily dominated by one (or more ) major catastrophes, and that explains most of the record.

It is an error to equate catastrophism solely with a YEC perspective. YEC is one sub-set of catastrophism. In fact, the great 19th century exponents of catastrophism were primarily OEC. The catastrophism they defended was not that of a single major catastrophe, but of a series of major catastrophes which separated major ages (permian-triassic, cretaceous-tertiary) from each other. They saw the flood as only one of these catastrophes and did not consider that it was solely responsible for the whole geologic column, but only surficial features of current topography.

Interestingly, just as uniformitarianism includes the factor of catastrophes, 19th century catastrophism included the factor of uniformitarianism, as it automatically included periods of uniform geological processes in the ages between one catastrophe and the next.

As with many polarized scientific debates, it eventually came down to acknowledging the truth of both perspectives. Nature did operate in the past as in the present, both in producing catastrophes and in producing eras of stability.

Niles Eldredge might be called an evolutionary catastrophist. He points to the five major historic mass extinctions as precursors of significant periods of rapid, radiating evolution.