I found this though:
Is the Present the Key to the Past?
What follows is a diatribe discussing the differences between uniformity and uniformitarianism. One YEC (herein called YEC A) frames this post as a response to another YEC (herein called YEC 1). YEC 1 argues that they are one and the same. While YEC A takes the stance that: uniformity is fine and kosher with the bible (but not with evolution, thus showing how foolish we scientists are), whereas uniformitarianism is stupid and contradicted by the bible.
First and foremost some actual Lyell:
"As the present condition of nations is the result of many antecedent changes, some extrememly remote and others recent, some gradual, others sudden and violent, so the state of the natural world is the result of a long succession of events, and if we would enlarge our experience of the present economy of nature, we must investigate the effects of her operations in former epochs".
Now that we have a very brief intro to Lyell, let's move on to YEC A and his definition of uniformitarianism:
Here lies his first major problem, he doesn't know what uniformitarianism is stating. In the analogy that Lyell has provided, he takes into account that the uniformity of rate is not necessarily true (the bolded portion of the Lyell's quote). The bolded portion of YEC A's statement is uniformitarianism AND uniformity. Uniformity implies a non-changing universe. Uniformitarianism allows for the conditions of the universe to change, but not the underlying laws.
As an example, consider canyon formation. Today, in most cases, canyons are gradually deepening as water slowly erodes the surrounding rock layers. A person holding to uniformitarianism would assume that this has always been the case; he would believe that a canyon has formed by water slowly eroding the surrounding rock layers since “the present is the key to the past.”
However, this need not be so. A number of geologists believe that many canyons (such as the Grand Canyon) were not formed (entirely) by the slow and gradual erosion from the river they now contain. Rather, some canyons were formed quickly under catastrophic conditions. So, the present is not the key to the past in these cases. Yet, the laws of nature presumably have been the same. Therefore, this is an example of uniformity, but not uniformitarianism.-YEC A
However, I will credit that at least he understands that geologists use modern processes to explain past events (i.e. no mystical beings allowed for science).
YEC A then lays the groundwork for a common argument in creationist nonsense:
Chemical reactions in nature, for example, may have happened at different temperatures and pressures than today, leading to different results. So, we have uniformity, but not uniformitarianism.I call bullshit on that. YEC A is blatantly misrepresenting science (though what else would you expect from a YEC who never understood science). If a chemical reaction can occur today at (for arguments sake) STP, then it will always have been able to occur under the same conditions (this is an example of uniformitarianism, but not uniformity). However, just because present conditions allow for it now, doesn't imply that those conditions were always present (this is the uniformity nonsense again).-YEC A
This doesn't mean (as YEC A is implying) that universal constants were different in the past. The speed of light was what it is now (300,000 m/s) 4.6 Gaa. 2 hydrogens would combine with 1 oxygen to form water. And gravity has always been proportional to mass and proximity. Just because the Earth has undergone changes in the past, doesn't mean the laws of the universe (such as: at what temperatures and pressures a reaction can occur) have changed. I will use the "Oxygen Catastrophe" as an example here. Just because the Earth has a decent amount of oxygen present today, doesn't mean it always had the same oxygen concentration. In fact, science has demonstrated that oxygen wasn't a significant component of an early Earth atmosphere.
After this, the topic goes away from science and well into the realm of poor reasoning. Though, I find the fact that YEC A is blind to the implications of his own stance hilarious.
A belief must be justified if it is to be considered rational. Otherwise, it is merely an arbitrary “blind” assumption. Children believe things without good reasons; they are convinced that there is a monster in the closet. And they feel no need to justify their belief; it is enough that they act on it (by pulling the sheets over their head).What is it about believing the bib-le to be an accurate telling of the formation of the universe that allows anyone to make the claim it is "justified"? There are two creation myths at the very beginning. And they disagree with each other! There are two chronologies of how we went from Adam on down the line (this is how YECs arrive at the 6000 year age of the Earth). And they don't agree either! The "inerrant" word of god contradicts itself again and again. In fact, here is a way of re-writing the bib-le so it would have agreed with modern science-YEC A
The bib-le, at best, is allegorical (at worst, it is a field manual on how to prepare a goat for sacrifice). It should be granted the same veracity that we impart Aesop's fables. This isn't to say it is all wrong (though some of it is very wrong, unless you agree that I can kill people who aren't exactly like me with god's blessing). Take home message from the bib-le. Don't be an ass. Oh, but wait, YEC A argues that even if I accept a belief, in my argument: the bib-le, as allegorical, it must still be justified (otherwise, according to YEC A, the whole thing is stupid).
Even if we accept it as an axiom, a belief still requires some sort of justification if it is to be considered rational and not arbitrary. If it is arbitrary, then why not assume the exact opposite?Well, I could take the low road and say that YEC A has shown the bib-le to be a completely illogical set of assumptions with no basis in reality (which, c'mon, it kinda is). But I won't (well, any more than I just did), There are a few issues it raises that are okay with me. Essentially summed up in my "Don't be an ass" bit. Love your neighbor (in a biblical sense if you want), but don't set locusts upon their living rooms. Learn to forgive people who piss you off, but don't wait until you kill everyone on the planet except for the party boat crew. Things like tolerance are fine to teach, but not the "divine retribution" crap. But, if we take YEC A's point to heart, all of that is irrational and should be ignored. Not his intention, but blam, it is there.-YEC A
This little diatribe of his has nothing to do with uniformitarianism either. Despite YEC A's insistence to YEC 1 that it is important.
A scientist (evolutionist or creationist) deals with the way the universe operates; he is not concerned with why it is the way it is. This does not make him inconsistent.YEC 1 makes a good point here (almost, creationists aren't scientists). Science doesn't really deal with anything outside of the natural world. And even though Naturalistic Materialism is a threatening concept to people who wish to go back to a time of nostalgia that never was, it is the best way of viewing the world. Actually, it is the only responsible way of viewing the world. Though I will also point out that science is actually concerned with both questions (how it operates, and why), so long as both can actually be answered in a scientific way (i.e. no moon dragons, water gnomes, space manatees, etc. allowed).-YEC 1
YEC A counters YEC 1 by, essentially, saying if we don't understand god we can't understand science. I think the fact that god is a super-natural being (and can, apparently, do whatever the fuck he wants), that puts him beyond the purview of science. That said, by YEC A's argument, all science is irrational.
Sorry to put anybody reading this through that, but misery loves company.