Catastrophism and uniformitarianism have been principles and ideas that have been used by so many to describe the changes of Earth over time. Catastrophism is the principle that states that all geologic change occurs suddenly, while uniformitarianism is the principle that the same geologic processes shaping the Earth today have been at work throughout Earth’s history and slowly changing the landscape of the Earth. It can also be said that if someone’s belief of the Earth was based on catastrophism then they would consider the Earth to be young (or can be old) as the changes are sudden. If one’s belief was based on uniformitarianism then they may consider the Earth to be millions of years old as it takes time for landscape of the to change. …show more content…
Catastrophists believed that Earth's landscape had been
shaped primarily by great catastrophes. The philosophy of uniformitarianism, which was born with the writings of James Hutton in the late 18th century, stated that the same
processes that mold Earth today shaped it in the past. Thus, in order to understand the past, one must understand the present. Catastrophism was a natural outgrowth of peoples'
view that Earth was created in 4004 B.C. (a figure derived from biblical interpretation). The creation of features of the natural landscape had to be tied to this short age. In contrast, the acceptance of uniformitarianism meant accepting a very long history for Earth, for most processes take a great deal of time to create and destroy features.
Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock
…show more content…
This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.
So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.
The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
In Charles Darwin’s life he had helped make a significant advancement in the way mankind viewed the world. With his observations, he played a part in shifting the model of evolution into his peers’ minds. Darwin’s theory on natural selection impacted the areas of science and religion because it questioned and challenged the Bible; and anything that challenged the Bible in Darwin’s era was sure to create contention with the church. Members of the Church took offense to Darwin’s Origins of Species because it unswervingly contradicted the teachings of the book of Genesis in the Bible. (Zhao, 2009) Natural selection changed the way people thought. Where the Bible teaches that “all organisms have been in an unchanging state since the great flood, and that everything twas molded in God’s will.” (Zhao, 2009) Darwin’s geological journey to the Galapagos Islands is where he was first able to get the observations he needed to prove how various species change over t...
In the uncertainty that the modern world is, there is one law that stays petrified in stone no matter what happens: “Things change with age.” No matter if it is in history, science, or even Pokémon, things change as time passes by and this process is called evolution. The theory formulated by Charles Darwin is the belief that all organisms have come from the earliest creatures because of external factors (“NSTA.”). School boards everywhere have accepted the theory of evolution as fact, making it essential to be in the curriculums of science classrooms. However, over the years, controversy has arisen as the fact that evolution is still only a theory with flaws and setbacks, efficiently making other theories (i.e. intelligent design) a viable alternative in the classroom.
The documentary begins with Stein speaking before an audience, addressing the principle of freedom in America. He then advances to discourse of the loss of academic freedom in the scientific community through interviews of scientific figures such as Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Michael Ignore, Robert Marks, and Guillermo Gonzalez. These interviews are contrasted with clips of scientists who refute the idea and validness of intelligent design. To get a perspective about the credibility and thoughts of Darwinism and intelligent design in the scientific community, Stein is referred to talk to other figures of science such as Bruce Chapman, Paul Nelson, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells. Stein then begins his in depth investigation interviewing Richard Dawkins, David Berlinski, and Michael Ruse, looking to determine how Darwin theory applies to the cr...
The theory of Uniformitarianism states that the present is the key to the past. Meaning that everything that is happening today as far as the processes of earth go happened in the past, and are responsible for present-days geological features (Connor and Harrison 10). In order to understand what caused the Rocky Mountains to be created during the Laramide Orogeny one must understand the processes of present-day. Visible exposure of bedrock is one of the best ways to discover how present-days geological features were created, and mountains are a great source of exposed bedrock (Connor and Harrison 10). They can show us how the Earth has changed and come to be the way it is today.
Charles Lyell was a British lawyer and one the smartest geologist known in his time. He was known as the author of the Principles of Geology, which helped popularize the theories and concepts of uniformitarianism. The Principles of Geology was the first book written by Lyell and explained the changes of the earth’s surface. He used the research and information in the book as his proof to determine that the earth was over 6,000 years old. The central argument in his book was “the present is the key to the past”, this meant that to find out what happened in the past you had to look at what was happening now. It explained that changes which happened in the past, were happening in the present, and will happen in the future. Lyell’s book was later published into three volumes from 1830-1833. After the publication, it gave him credentials as an important geological theorist. His book later influenced a young Charles Darwin. Lyell’s influential book led Darwin to follow his principles and they later became friends. Darwin began to explore the changes that happen on the earth and develop his theories of evolution, though Charles did not completely endorse Darwin’s theory of evolution. Lyell was a devout Christian and Darwin’s theory of evolution did not line up with his Lyell’s beliefs with natural selection. Darwin continued his research and beliefs of his own and became a scientist working with his theories of evolution.
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
d. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. Is Science Autonomous? American Psychologist, 23, 70. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=0003066x&issue=v23i0001&article=70_isa&search_term=%28title%3D%28is+science+autonomous%29%29 Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Arguing About Science -.
Lennox, James. "Darwinism." Stanford University. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). , 13 Aug. 2004. Web. 12 May 2014.
After reading this week’s topic 1301.4 Scientific Method; I understood the meaning of Uniformitarianism; and it’s importance to science. There are several different definitions, but they all have the same understanding of what uniformitarianism is, and how it exist. “Uniformitarianism is the idea that the present is the key to past.” (Carmichael, 2013). A more modern term for uniformitarianism is called actualism. Uniformitarianism is a process that happens over a course of time, at different rates. In simpler term Uniformitarianism is a way of explaining that certain things in life happen even if no one was around to ‘witness’ the event; why, because it is just nature and happens that way. The way that Uniformitarianism functions within scientific
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
Monastersky, Richard. (2004). Society Disowns Paper Attacking Darwinism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51, Iss. 5, A.16.
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...
The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin defines a juncture in history when scholars that originally complied with accepted truths based from ancient Hellenistic Greece and Rome began to question the phenomenon that is our universe. Through observation of experimentation and theory, Shapin guides readers to consider nature as a macrocosm like scholars in this era. Societies during the scientific revolution began to reorder the way they saw the natural world and made efforts to examine nature and science as a closer relationship. While reading the scientific revolution we can examine the shift from stagnant religious beliefs and accepted truths, that were dictated by the middle ages, to the introduction of critical natural scholars like Nicholas Copernicus, Robert Boyle who contributed to the overall rapid aggregation of knowledge in Europe during the 18th century. Through observing and experimenting with the way nature interacts
At the very dawning of the science of historical geology, James Hutton developed views on the earth’s geologic processes and ow they affect the planet unlike any other scientist before him. His idea that the planet’s processes revolved in a cyclic fashion were the cornerstone of uniformitarianism. Although he did not coin the phrase himself, an honor bestowed upon William Whewell, he did form the basic idea that the history of the earth can be explained by what is happening now.