Uniformitarianism - Dogma?

I need clarification: Is this an example of Dogma in science?

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformityor the Uniformitarian Principle,[1] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

Do scientists need to believe in Uniformitarianism in order to validate evolution?

Is Uniformitarianism a thing just because it conveniently counters the biblical flood, Was it an invention from necessity?

In 1785 James Hutton proposed an opposing, self-maintaining infinite cycle based on natural history and not on the Biblical account.[13][14]

Hutton then sought evidence to support his idea that there must have been repeated cycles, each involving deposition on the seabed, uplift with tilting and erosion, and then moving undersea again for further layers to be deposited.

Did Charles Lyell, a lawyer edit his Principles of Geology to help Darwin get better traction for evolution?

Only during completion of a major revision of the Principles of Geology in 1865 did he fully adopt Darwin’s conclusions, however, adding powerful arguments of his own that won new adherents to Darwin’s theory. Why Lyell was hesitant in accepting Darwinism is best explained by Darwin himself: “Considering his age, his former views, and position in society, I think his action has been heroic.”

Link

Could the need to find a non biblical answer cause a bias in the observations?

It seem to me that because of Uniformitarianism any observations now must somehow conform to a old age theory.

I want to believe in Darwin’s evolution but things like Uniformitarianism make me think it’s just a convenient invention, anything but God.

a reply to: Observationalist

In my opinion you're absolutely correct. Dogma.

Many scientists absolutely wretch at the notion of people considering some of their ideas as dogma. But there are a few... and most are worth questioning... if only to keep them honest about assumptions.

But science has a strong point in its favor... in theory... they are willing to revise their positions to account for new ideas ... in theory....

Here's a video notorious for being banned, if you're interested.

What scripture say is true. My dad is a 96-year-old genius scientist. He often discusses all the made-up nonsense in so called science. He shoots holes in so many of their theories. He knows what he is talking about. He attended 8 colleges. He was even summoned to meet with a VP at the Whitehouse in the 70s to discuss a method he invented to detect bacterium. He is a Bacteriologist, Microbiologist, Chemist, Engineer, advanced Mathematician, and was Director of Research for a Fortune 500 company.

He told me years ago he discovered evidence of intelligent design in math. I didn't really understand. He is still independent and drives, cooks, does art, and above all spends hours every day reading and doing research. My family lived near the base of Mount Ararat until 1913. Our family member ruled in the Ottoman empire in the late 1800s (Hagop Kazazian Pasha). The flood was real and was worldwide. The water was above the top of every mountain on Earth. The planet was wrecked. It is absolutely not millions of years old. That is all intentional lies to deny Creationism by the Living God. There are several extensive videos (7 plus hour worth) that easily prove that modern evolution theory is nonsense. Real scientists go through everything, including sediment levels worldwide. They demonstrate how quickly things like the Grand Canyon were formed. They go through carbon dating and everything.

I think these may be the videos I saw.





Part two is very good too. Its over 4 hours long

Lyell, like all scientists of the age, were deeply religious - even Darwin. For them to propose anything other than a biblical account of life on Earth would have been heresy and expulsion from not only the scientific community, but from society at large. Darwin delayed publishing Origins for years because of this worry, but he knew it was based on genuine evidence.

Lyell resisted also, but based on evidence that he personally observed throughout his studies and dismissed, he was convinced Darwin was right and altered his own book to accommodate the ideas Darwin proposed. The theory is attributed to Darwin, but it was not new. A few philosophers had proposed this idea, or parts of it, over a the previous couple hundred years, but were ignored and some punished - or killed.

So yes, it did require enormous courage to speak about, and especially publish, new scientific discoveries and theories that did not align with religious dogma. Congratulations them, the world will be forever grateful.

No.

Next question:

Could your questioning of uniformitarianism simply be down to your need to dismiss scientific observational fact in order to validate a primitive "just so" story?

a reply to: AndyMayhew


Thank you for that a very dogmatic No

To me it seems like science has a complex, it can’t say I don’t know. With Naturalism, science must have the answers, if it doesn’t then….oh no…..philosophy, or worse theology. No, no, no anything but god. To me science should not be used by either Naturalism, a philosophy with assumptions, or Christianity to validate their assumptions.

Science is not a flag that you can stick into something and claim your territory.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Thank you for you reply. I’ll take a look at that video. I came across the Hydroplate theory and it got me thinking. The videos I watch on that are what made me look into uniformitarianism. I had no idea so much of what we were taught in school was anchored to such a strong assumption. I wondered why I hated science, because it was just memorizing facts of supposedly settled science. It make sense now that there is no wonder or discovery in academic science. They seem insecure about what paths that might lead people to.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: Observationalist

In my opinion you're absolutely correct. Dogma.

Many scientists absolutely wretch at the notion of people considering some of their ideas as dogma. But there are a few... and most are worth questioning... if only to keep them honest about assumptions.

But science has a strong point in its favor... in theory... they are willing to revise their positions to account for new ideas ... in theory....

Here's a video notorious for being banned, if you're interested.

Excellent! I can see why it was pulled down. We are not taught the history or the motivation of science very much. We are told to just obey the guys in the lab coats. Kinda like in religion we are to trust the guys in the robes.

originally posted by: Observationalist

Do scientists need to believe in Uniformitarianism in order to validate evolution?

On the contrary, evolutionary philosophers and propagandists (who like to sell/market themselves and eachother as scientists and their unverified philosophies and proven myths under the marketingbanner "Science") need to believe (the forces of) nature to have worked differently in the past compared to what we are observing now. In particular concerning those realities described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Which counts as much for what has been called "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" as well as biological (macro)evolution.

...

Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.# Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.” [#: Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.]

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

...

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

...

Is It Scientific?

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠27 Does that sound like objective science?

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.”⁠28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”⁠29

...

28. The Immense Journey, by Loren Eiseley, 1957, p. 200.

29. Ibid., p. 199.

In their own words. (The forces of) Nature does (do) not operate that way today, it does not go from inanimate matter to the order of the biomolecular machinery that makes up life, nature operates in the other direction, machines, houses, and even living cells in time break down (order to disorder). The only way to reverse that process is by intelligent intervention. Evolutionists must believe that in the past this process of nature was reversed without intelligent intervention. Multiple times in the story of biological (macro)evolution so you can go from a simpler unicellular prokaryotic organism to the more sophisticated eukaryotic multicellular organisms such as humans and animals (which requires more order in the form of more systems of machinery, and more machines, more coding, etc.).

That's not uniformitarianism. And neither is it conforming to uniformiatarinism when they shift the problem of the origin of life to outer space as in the panspermia storylines. Then something supposedly happened there that defies everything we know and have observed as to how nature operates in regards to the emergence of technology and machinery, or what effects the forces of nature have on that technology and machinery over time if left unattended (or not interfered with by intelligent agents), i.e. letting 'nature do its thing'. So that would contradict the part in your quoted definition for uniformitarianism that says "the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe." (I'm referring to the bolded part now)

So incorporating the idea/philosophy of panspermia into a response by using the bolded quote from the evolutionist in the article, I could adjust it as such:

“... namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today on earth had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past somewhere else in the universe.”

I hope that further clarifies why it is not conform uniformitarianism to believe as such (my changes are cursive).

Concerning biological (macro)evolution, the problem of the natural process described in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is particularly apparent when one begins to look in detail what effect mutations have on species in the longterm, on average. Again in time we see genetic degradation, things breaking down, loss of functionality, not a gain of functionality as would be required in the evolutionary story from unicellular prokaryotic life to multicellular life, culminating in the most intelligent physical lifeform known, human beings (which again requires more specialized machinery than unicellular life and animals).

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
No.

Next question:

Could your questioning of uniformitarianism simply be down to your need to dismiss scientific observational fact in order to validate a primitive "just so" story?

Talking about a primitive religious (or religiously motivated*) just-so story (which defies the observed facts regarding how nature works as explained in my previous comment):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

*: that motivation being related to Mother Nature/Gaia worship, pantheism and attributing godlike attributes to nature or natural forces, such as the ability to create machinery and technology, treating nature as if it has foresight and the ability to select (an ability that implies a conscious goal and will) by using misleading terminology for chance events that involve no conscious willful purposeful selection whatsoever. Basically swapping out "God" with "nature" (or natural forces). Now nature can do everything an intelligent being like the God described in the Bible can do, supposedly. The videos have a bit more detail, but it focuses more on pantheism (the believe that everything is God, similar to the notion that the universe itself is conscious, or nature itself if you will).

a reply to: visitedbythem

It is absolutely not millions of years old.

Young earth/universe creationism is defeated by science itself and I believe in creation.
Genesis 1:1 has no time line and it can agree with modern Cosmology.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here is why, the light that is just reaching earth now from stars a 100 million light years away, means they existed that long ago. It's not a trick from anybody just basic science. And if you think the timeline after that is six basic 24 hour days bound to our solar system; well God was trying to put things in a way humans could understand them. In no way was God rushed in the creation of our planet and all the supporting systems.
You are probably familiar with the scripture that talks about how time works very different for God, a 1000 years to him is like day to a human, time is relative, the longer you live the faster we perceive it to go.

Old earth/galaxy/Universe creation is supported by science, and we haven't even got to life on our planet yet, cosmology comes before the discussion of evolution every time, because that's how this timeline is.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Isaiah 42:5
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein

Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 45:12,18
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded…

Im not a scientist. My dad is though. Key word stretch

a reply to: visitedbythem

I agree with all those scriptures, but your timeline of events I do not.
And you should also know young earth/universe creationism is VERY hard to defend with all we know about science.

It is widely accepted by both geologists and astronomers that Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old. This age has been obtained from the isotopic analysis of many meteorites as well as of soil and rock samples from the Moon by such dating methods as rubidium–strontium and uranium–lead.

This can and does agree with Genesis 1:1, which has no timeline stated, in the following verses everything stated in Genesis that has to do with creation comes AFTER Genesis 1:1 is completed.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

When Earth was created, all the Angels cheered. I also don't believe them to be billions of years old. Most scientists will also tell you there was no Noah's ark. I happen to have family information that there was and is. My family lived near the base of Ararat. People from the villages used to go up there to chisel Souvenir pieces off of the stern when it was partially exposed due to at least 15 years consecutive drought. The ship was the size of a giant ocean liner and frozen in solid ice. It was petrified, and still in one piece when we left in 1913. There are reports that state that a portion of the stern broke off and tumbled down the mountainside in a severe earthquake around 1916.

Remember, most scientists also will tell you that we came from monkeys, and they need to have an ancient Earth to fit that made up nonsense. They will also tell you there were no giants, and they will arrest you and throw you in jail if you dig in the mounds to have a look. Evolution doesn't work if giants are in the equation. Scientists will also tell you there is no God, and that we are not spiritual beings. They will tell you that mythology was just all made up fanciful stories. They will tell you that Angels did not come down on Mount Hermon and agree to have unlawful sex with human women polluting the human race with their DNA. I do understand your stance on Earths age, as I too believed as you do. Now I believe the Grand Canyon was formed very quickly as demonstrated using scientific methods.

I remember when they used to say " where did all the water go that made up the flood in order to be above the tallest mountains. Recently they have announced that is more water in and under Earths crust then there is on the surface. I do not believe that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago either. Ive found too many clues that indicate they were here not that long ago.

a reply to: visitedbythem

I believe in the flood as you stated it.
Like you said the recent discovery of massive amounts of water below the crust, confirm our closed eco-system that water was always in the eco-system of earth, suddenly it was all above ground, and all that H20 is still with us, be it frozen, in the ocean or under the crust as you said.

Genesis 7:11

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that same day all the fountains of the great deep [subterranean waters] burst open, and the windows and floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Don't you love when the science finally confirms what the bible said all along.

Here is the thing, some science is undisputable, other parts of science are theoretical but treated as reality, evolution is one of those things.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I agree with much you say.

We will know the truth one day.
As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

for full context:

11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. 12 Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of these is love.… Enjoy the balance of your day

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Remember, most scientists also will tell you that we came from monkeys

At this point you lost all respect as a coherent orator and intelligent rational being.

No scientist EVER has said we came from monkeys. Not one. Ever.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Of course, Darwin is not a good example of a "scientist", since his only degree was a Bachelor of Arts in the Divine Studies (nowadays called theology), received from Christ's College. And his evolutionary philosophies are rooted in pagan religious philosophy, that's where his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, got it from as well (Pagan Greek mythology involving Gaia/Mother Nature worship and pantheism*). Charles Darwin in turn got his ideas/philosophies from his grandfather.

Philosopher would be a more appropiate description for both.

*: see link from my previous comment for details

Full title: Darwinism - just another pagan philosophy

The ancient Hindu writings concerning "the tree of life" and evolutionary mythology also use the words for "monkeys" rather than "apes" when discussing the evolution of man. I.e. it was monkey-to-man for them as well. Making an issue out of someone saying "monkeys" rather than "apes" in discussions about the evolution of man, seems to have come later (after Darwin's time). As a means to ridicule the one using "monkeys" rather than "apes", to paint the picture that that person doesn't understand evolution or doesn't know what they're talking about (same thing with pointing out that evolutionary theory says that we share a common ancestor with apes rather than "came from" them). A means to discredit any disagreement with or objection to evolutionary mythology.

a reply to: whereislogic

Man's remote ancestor was mammalian, of which many have tails - the branch we evolved from did, but way back in the evolutionary chain. Our direct ancestor was ape, with no tail.

No biologist would say now that we evolved from monkeys - only creationists still cling on this this ignorant, 18th/19th C naivety.