Replies

Generalizations are often worthless. And your catastrophism/uniformitarianism argument is just that - a generalization. Nearly 80 years ago, W.M. Davis wrote (in "The Value of the Outrageous Geological Hypothesis," Science, Vol. 83, 1926) that substantive uniformitarianism (the implication that the materials, conditions, and rates of processes during the history of the earth have remained constant) limited thought and speculation. Methodological uniformitarianism, in other other hand implies that the laws of nature (such as speed of light, gravity, thermodynamics, properties of fluids and solids, etc.) remain in constant operation.

Unless one wishes to invoke the omnipotent intervention of the supernatural, then all reasonable people would agree that methodological uniformitarianism provides a basis for rational scientific discussion.

I know that in my profession of geology, the science has grown exponentially in the past 50 years. To think that reasonable scientists would not modify or re-think their ideas in light of new evidence is laughable. I was lucky enough to work on projects, such as the Deep Sea Drilling Project, that provided powerful evidence for the hypothesis of sea floor spreading (plate tectonics). I was also fortunate to work closely with some of the top micropaleontologists in the world. Micropaleontologists work with the smallest of "God's creations." These tiny, yet amazingly complex foraminifera, diatoms, etc. tell a story of morphological evolution unlike any in the macroscopic world. By comparing the forms observed with the depositional environment recorded in the rocks, one can observe slow, steady evolution during environmentally steady periods of time, and rapid morphological change, extinction, relocation, replacement, and re-population during periods of climatological and/or geological upheaval. The evidence is all there, preserved in all of its microscopic detail.

Which gets me back to my point. You set up a generalist strawman comparing catastrophism and uniformitarianism and drew conclusions from it. Your implicit point was that creationist world view was unchanging. (That world view is not surprising, given that it is more-or-less based on a literalist interpretaion of the Bible.)

You asked the question, "Which group had to change?" Let me restate the question as, "Which group is willing to learn and grow?"

"Generalizations are often worthless."

No, they're not. Generally speaking, men are stronger than women. Generally speaking, BMW's are more expensive than Buicks. Generally speaking, mainfames handle more mips than servers.

Generally speaking, neighborhood "X" is a safer place to walk than neighborhood "Y".

Generalizing is what get's people through life. True, to get to the nitty gritty of any important decision, one must look past the generalization: For example, a guy IS a man but at five feet, 115 lbs, he may be less qualified as a fireman candidate than a woman who is 6' and works out regularly.

Generalizing is a valuable tool however, especially on a general purpose message board.

"Unless one wishes to invoke the omnipotent intervention of the supernatural, then all reasonable people would agree that methodological uniformitarianism provides a basis for rational scientific discussion."

I agree that it is a good starting place, like a white canvas, primed and ready for the first brush stroke of discovery. I consider sciences main focus to be "how," while religions focus is "why."

"Which gets me back to my point. You set up a generalist strawman comparing catastrophism and uniformitarianism and drew conclusions from it. Your implicit point was that creationist world view was unchanging."

I don't consider it a strawman. And yes, generally speaking, the creationist world view IS pretty much unchanging. There are as many creationist viewpoints as there are creationists however, so I have no choice but to generalize.

"You asked the question, 'Which group had to change?' Let me restate the question as, 'Which group is willing to learn and grow?'"

I think the answer to your question is, "many on both sides." It is not the facts that trouble creationists. It's the conclusions that many evolutionists try to draw.

I'll give you an illustration:

Let's say that an archeological expedition 100,000 years from now digs up the Seattle area long ago covered in a mudslide from an ancient eruption of Mt Rainier. They find my old house, my employment records, and the city's bus schedule. They discover that the bus went from my house to Downtown and arrived there at 7:50 every morning and left downtown at 5:10 every night. They further discovered that my work shift was 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Now some would say, "We discovered that Not Insane took the bus to work every day." Others would say, "Based on information we have uncovered, one possible explanation for how Not Insane got to work every day is that he took the bus.

It is the former group with which I have a very STRONG dispute.

Oh, btw, I DROVE to work because I needed my car. It is just a little fact they had not yet discovered that blew their deduction out of the water. The latter group could easily alter their statement as this information is uncovered. The former group would look a little silly at that point, as have most evolutionist "lay people," in my opinion. The professionals are a little more careful at defending their speculations. They seem to have less RELIGIOUS ferver about them than many of the "creationists are ignorant and stupid" type evolutionists.

This issue is one of religious proportions for many people on BOTH sides. At least one will admit it.

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." -- Genisis (The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway)