Actualism: Assumptions

Actualism (Modern Uniformitarianism) and its Assumptions

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D., May 17, 2011, Revised August 30, 2013

My Previous Statements on Lyell Uniformitarianism and Actualism

Actualism refers to both the methodology used by 21st century geologists to decipher the geologic record and the natural processes that produced that record. In my 1999 critique of Oard (1997), I provided the following description of modern uniformitarianism (actualism) and how it differs from Lyell uniformitarianism that was used from the mid-19th century through the first part of the 20th century:

“At one time, geologists widely accepted Lyell uniformitarianism, which states that the natural processes affecting the geologic record today are the same processes that affected the record in the past and that the overall natural rates of erosion, deposition, volcanic eruptions, etc., are constant over time. Today, geologists recognize that natural rates are not constant. For example, erosion was probably higher before the evolution of land plants. Also, at times in the Earth's past, glaciers dominated the landscapes. At other times, such as the Cretaceous, glaciers may have been nearly or totally absent. Volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts may have been much more common at certain times during the Earth’s history (such as the early Precambrian) than at other times. During parts of the Paleozoic Era, large restricted marine basins in dry climates allowed for the production of abundant dolostones and thick salt (evaporite) deposits. Today, these deposits are not forming to any large extent because of the lack of large effectively restricted marine basins in dry climates.

Geologists also recognize that BOTH slow and gradual processes (such as varve deposition and evaporation to form salt deposits) and NATURAL catastrophes (such meteorite impacts, hurricanes and earthquakes) have affected the geologic record. Some of these natural events are extremely rare or even unique in the Earth’s history, such as the likely planet-wide glaciation(s) in the late Precambrian.

To emphasize the great differences between modern uniformitarianism and the long-rejected Lyell uniformitarianism of the mid-19^th century, many geologists refer to modern uniformitarianism as actualism. Nevertheless, most YECs, including Steve Austin, the YEC's “authority” on uniformitarianism, do not even recognize that actualism is very different from Lyell uniformitarianism (Austin, 1984; Strahler, 1987, p. 453-454). Like most YECs, Oard [1997] has many misconceptions of actualism (p. 26, 32, and so on), which causes him to use many invalid strawperson arguments against geologists and their work. Examples of Oard's misconceptions are discussed below.” [capitalized emphasis in the original]

The Assumptions of Actualism

Although he does not specifically say why in his chapter, Oard (2008, p. 6) complains that my “definition” (description) of actualism from my 1999 essay is “unusual” and shows “serious weaknesses.” Oard (2009a, p. 111) repeats these unjustified accusations. Oard (2009a, p. 114) further accuses me of not providing a precise definition of actualism. However, I would argue that the discussions and examples in my 1999 essay were far more accurate and consistent with what geologists actually use than the statements in Oard (1997) and Oard (2009a), which are full of strawperson fallacies. My above 1999 description is certainly far more detailed and accurate than the brief two sentence “precise” definition of actualism given in the glossary of Oard and Reed (2009, p. 262) (also see “Inadequate Definitions and Descriptions of Actualism and Other Terms in Oard and Reed (2009)”). Nevertheless, just in case Mr. Oard and others still require more detail, I further describe what actualism is and is not in this essay.

To expand upon the views in my 1999 essay, it may be said that actualism (modern uniformitarianism) often in contrast to Lyell uniformitarianism:

1) recognizes that the rates of geological and other natural processes (such as erosion and sediment deposition) may considerably vary over space and geologic time. That is, the current rate of a natural process in a given area may be much greater or less than the same process at another location in the past.

2) recognizes that natural catastrophes (such as ancient hurricanes, supervolcanoes, earthquakes, or asteroid impacts) can have important roles in the formation of rocks. For example, the origin of a sandstone layer may have largely resulted from slow deposition and reworking of sand over a long period of time on an ancient beach, or it may have been entirely deposited overnight on a beach by an ancient hurricane. Detailed field studies would be needed to determine which, if any, of these two explanations is likely.

3) does NOT require modern analogs for ancient environments. The original 19th century French meaning of actualism referred to using modern-day features and processes to interpret the geologic record (“the present is the key to the past”; Rudwick 2008, p. 15, note 4; Shea 1982, p. 456). Like so many words, the modern meaning of actualism (modern uniformitarianism) is different than the original continental European definition. That is, some ancient processes that participated in the formation of the geologic record may no longer be active on Earth (such as the precipitation of banded iron formations) and some of these processes may even have been unique past events in the Earth's history (such as, the impact theory on the formation of the Moon). So, a geologic process may be: 1) only associated with a unique event in the geologic history of the Earth, 2) once extensive and now extinct, 3) active today and sometimes rare in the past or 4) common throughout geologic time and still active today. Actualism simply requires that every past, present or future geologic process must comply with natural laws (see below). However, Mr. Oard in Oard (1997) and Oard (2009a) repeatedly refuses to recognize that actualism (= modern uniformitarianism) does not require modern analogs.

As stated in Dott and Batten (1988, p. 44), the modern version of uniformitarianism (actualism) may be defined “narrowly” as only relying on constant natural laws over time:

“The only assumption that we make today is that the principles or laws of nature have been uniform through time.” [original emphasis]

Additionally, young-Earth creationist (YEC) Austin (1979, p. 36) recognizes that some geologists utilize this narrow definition of actualism:

“Gould (1965) equates actualism with his term methodological uniformitarianism, which concerns only the constancy of 'natural laws' in space and time.”

Scientists observe nature and derive explanations or laws to describe the consistent and predictable properties and behavior of various natural features, such as planets, galaxies, rocks, and gases. Important natural laws include Newton's Three Laws of Motion, Boyle's Law, Charles' Law, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, Einstein's Laws of Special and General Relativity, etc. Considering that we can successfully navigate spacecraft, predict and synthesize new chemicals, explain unwitnessed past events beyond a reasonable doubt, and define and achieve other technical goals, we must have an adequate working knowledge of many natural processes. Certainly, in his work as a meteorologist, Mr. Oard must have assumed that the same laws of physics that controls today's weather would also do so tomorrow. In other words, because meteorologists have the same approaches to nature as other scientists, they are also actualists.

Strahler (1999, p. 62) also advocates the use of Occam's razor in scientific investigations:

“Another principle implicit in uniformitarianism is that all interpretations of the universe and its parts should be as simple as possible, following the principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor...[reference to chapter omitted].”

Although valid scientific explanations are not always “simple”, actualism should follow the guidelines of Occam's razor by adopting hypotheses with the fewest assumptions.

So, to define actualism, I would only add Strahler's advocacy of Occam's Razor to Gould's and Dott and Batten's “narrow” natural law definition. Therefore, under actualism, geologists make the following two assumptions to explain the origins of features in the geologic record:

1) Actualism assumes uniformity of natural laws. All hypotheses produced under actualism to explain the origins of features in the geologic record must comply with natural laws and, in particular, the laws of chemistry and physics. Natural laws have not significantly changed since the Big Bang. The supernatural may exist, but any effects that it may have had on the geologic record cannot be scientifically investigated. Therefore, the supernatural must be excluded from all hypotheses to explain the geologic record at least until IF and when scientific technologies are developed to decisively identify the results of any supernatural processes and distinguish them from natural processes. Actualism is non-supernatural and non-theistic methodological materialism and not atheistic philosophical materialism.

2) All hypotheses under actualism should be parsimonious or comply with the guidelines of Occam's razor.

So, here are the clear statements of the assumptions and biases of actualism that Reed and Oard (2009, p. 14) desire. These are the only “faith commitments” that 21st century geologists need to have and these commitments repeatedly prove their validity in geologic research, including prospecting for ores and petroleum. The geologists' actualism is simply the scientific method with an emphasis on investigating past unwitnessed events. Geologists use these two assumptions to develop hypotheses to explain events in the geologic record and then test the hypotheses with additional research. Compared to the highly questionable and often refuted biblical interpretations of young-Earth creationism, these two assumptions are very reasonable and are not at all based on blind hopeful faith. As discussed in “The Geologist's Biases are Your Biases”, actualism has the very same assumptions that are utilized in the American legal system, Western medicine, and that most of us use in our daily lives.

Because my description of actualism is taken from respected geology sources (Dott and Batten 1988, pp. 43-44; Gould 1965; Strahler 1999; etc.) and commonly occur in contemporary undergraduate geology textbooks (Abbott, 2009; Hamblin and Christiansen, 2004; Lutgens and Tarbuck, 2008, etc.), I would argue that my description is not “unusual” and weak as Oard (2008, p. 6) and Oard (2009a, p. 111) claim and that I'm not “confused” about the meaning of actualism as stated in Oard (2009a, p. 113). Not being a geologist, Mr. Oard is simply not familiar with actualism and how it is used by 21st century geologists. Furthermore, probably without realizing it, Mr. Oard relies on the very actualism (natural processes) that he hates, and not the supernatural or the Bible, when he tries to explain the geology of the so-called Flood and non-biblical post-Flood ice age deposits (see: “Why does Mr. Oard Embrace the Actualism that He Hates Instead of YEC Supernaturalism to Explain the Origin of the Supposed Flood and Post-Flood Deposits?”).

Natural Law Requirements of Actualism

Actualism states that the remaining evidence of past events in the geologic record can be successfully explained with Occam's Razor and the known laws of chemistry and physics. Geologists often define and add biological and geological principles to the list, although these principles may not be strict natural laws. For example, the Principle of Faunal Succession is very reliable and is often effectively used by geologists in petroleum exploration and other activities.

Under actualism, plausible scientific hypotheses are based on natural laws rather than magic or other forms of the supernatural. As long as a geological hypothesis explains the evidence and does not involve levitating boulders, pyroxene precipitating from cold water, water boiling at 5^oC under normal atmospheric pressure, or any other violations of natural laws, the hypothesis should be considered. Beyond the two requirements of complying with natural law and Occam's Razor, geologists are free to use their imaginations and creativity to explain the evidence in the geologic record. However, it must be remembered that just because a hypothesis complies with the requirements of actualism that does not mean that it will survive testing. Most hypotheses fail.

Actualism is not restricted to the Earth. Due to a very weak magnetic field and the absence of an ozone layer on Mars, we may find chemical processes involving solar radiation on the Martian surface that are not currently present on Earth. Since these chemical processes would obey natural laws, they fit under the broad umbrella of actualism. However, because specifics about the formation and geologic history of Mars are absent from the Bible, future young-Mars creationist explorers of the planet (if there are any) are going to have problems avoiding actualism and looking for evidence of the supernatural in Martian geology.

The realization that the geologic record should comply with uniform natural laws is not a new concept. Dott and Batten (1988, p. 44) quote John Playfair and show that the importance of the uniformity of natural laws to geology was recognized by at least 1802:

“Amid all the revolutions of the globe the economy of Nature has been uniform, and her laws are the only thing that have resisted the general movement. The rivers and the rocks, the seas, and the continents have been changed in all their parts; but the laws which describe those changes, and the rules to which they are subject, have remained invariably the same.”

Strahler (1999, p. 62) states the following about modern uniformitarianism (actualism) and its wide application in all science:

“Uniformitarianism should be viewed as antithetic to any and all theories invoking supernatural forces for the origins of things geologic or biologic or of any other natural-science phenomena. Uniformitarianism includes the assumption that laws of physics and chemistry as presently understood have applied to all past time and will apply to all future time; they are assumed valid unless compelling independent evidence should be found to suggest that they may have differed in quality or quantity at other points in time or space. In using that assumption, all science operates today under the uniformitarian principle.”

Strahler (1999, p. 194) also concludes:

“Under the updated statement of a useful principle of uniformitarianism it boils down essentially to affirmation of the validity of universal scientific laws through time and space, coupled with a rejection of supernatural causes.”

Strahler (1999, p. 62) further comments on the literally universal property of modern uniformitarianism (actualism):

“In cosmology, the study of the structure and evolution of the universe, it is assumed that the laws of physics are similar throughout the entire universe.”

There is good evidence from the behavior of distant galaxies, the chemistry of the Universe, the Oklo reactor, the geologic record and Supernova 1987A that the laws of chemistry and physics have not significantly changed since the early stages of the Big Bang. Contrary to numerous YEC misconceptions about the size and age of the Universe (Isaak's CE list), when astronomers look at distant stars, they are looking back in time and the laws of chemistry and physics appear constant over the vastness of space and time. Therefore, we can argue that the actualistic requirement that the laws of chemistry and physics have remained constant or essentially constant in the past is much more than just a hopeful assumption or “blind faith.” It indeed represents reality and the assumption should be considered a well-verified foundational principle rather than just embraced out of hope or faith to make scientific research easier and more practical.

The authors of Oard and Reed (2009) could become familiar with the critical role of natural laws in actualism if they would simply read a few undergraduate geology textbooks that are commonly used in the United States. For example, Hamblin and Christiansen (2004, p. 190) recognizes the importance of stable natural laws when defining modern uniformitarianism (actualism):

“The interpretation of rocks as products and records of events in Earth's history is based on a fundamental assumption of scientific inquiry: the principle of uniformitarianism, which states that the laws of nature do not change with time. We assume that the chemical and physical laws operating today have operated throughout all of time.” [original emphasis]

Concerning the application of natural laws in modern uniformitarianism (actualism), Levin (2010, p. 18) states:

“This simple yet powerful idea was later named uniformitarianism because it says that geologic processes are uniform through all time. Specifically, what is 'uniform' are the physical and chemical laws that govern nature.” [original emphasis]

Lutgens and Tarbuck (2008, p. 225) concludes:

“Uniformitarianism is still a fundamental principle of modern geology. It simply states that the physical, chemical, and biological laws that operate today have also operated in the geologic past.” [original emphasis]

Judson and Richardson (1995, p. 2) write:

“Geology has its own expression for our assumption that the laws of nature are constant. It is called the principle of uniformitarianism.”

Abbott (2009, p. 47) states:

“Uniformitarianism implies that natural laws are uniform through time and space. Physical and biological laws produce certain effects today, as they have in the past, and will in the future.”

Abbott (2009, p. 47) also warns us not to invoke "unknown and untestable processes" to explain the geologic record. Yet, inventing unknown and untestable processes is exactly what YECs do when they invoke groundless accelerations in radioactive decay just to prop up their spurious interpretations of the Bible.

Oard (2009a, p. 113) claims that while YECs “openly admit” that they rely on the supernatural in their worldview, he accuses actualists of supposedly being unwilling to admit to their reliance on the anti-supernatural. Yet, I have just quoted numerous references (Strahler, 1999; Playfair 1802 in Dott and Batten, 1988; Judson and Richardson 1995; Levin 2010; Hamblin and Christiansen, 2004; Lutgens and Tarbuck, 2008; Abbott 2009), where geologists openly admit to sole dependence on natural law and/or openly reject the supernatural as workable in scientific investigations. So, if Mr. Oard really understands actualism and the literature on actualism, how can he in Oard (2009a, p. 113) accuse geologists of being unwilling to admit that their worldview rejects the supernatural in scientific investigations? By recognizing that supernatural explanations are unworkable in science, it is the geologists, and not the YECs, that are far ahead in understanding the Earth’s past. (At the same time, denial of a role for the supernatural in scientific investigations is not necessarily atheism. See here and here.)

Occam's Razor in Actualism

As stated in my second assumption of actualism above, scientific hypotheses should be parsimonious or in compliance with the guidelines of Occam's Razor. That is, scientific hypotheses should contain as few assumptions as possible and exclude any superfluous components or unnecessary speculations that are not supported by the evidence. For example, forensic investigators tend to assume that there was only one suspect for an unwitnessed murder unless physical evidence arises showing that more than one killer was involved. Investigators do not assume an arbitrary number of suspects (such as 4 or 40) and then claim that only one of them left any fingerprints, DNA or other evidence behind at the crime scene. This would be an unjustified assumption and a violation of Occam's Razor.

References

Abbott, P.L. 2009. Natural Disasters, 7th edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 526pp.

Austin, S.A. 1979. “Uniformitarianism- A Doctrine that Needs Rethinking”, The Compass, v. 56, n. 2, pp. 29-45.

Austin, S.A. 1984. Catastrophes in Earth History: A Source Book of Geological Evidence, Speculation, and Theory, Institute for Creation Research, Monograph No. 13, El Cajon, CA, USA.

Dott, R.H. and R. L. Batten. 1988. Evolution of the Earth, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 684pp.

Gould, S.J. 1965. “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?”, American Journal of Science, v. 263, pp. 223-228.

Hamblin, W.K. and E.H. Christiansen. 2004. Earth's Dynamic Systems, 10th edition, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 790pp.

Judson, S. and S.M. Richardson. 1995. Earth: An Introduction to Geologic Change, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 551pp.

Levin, H. 2010. The Earth through Time, 9th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 606pp.

Lutgens, F.K. and E.J. Tarbuck. 2008. Foundations of Earth Science, 5th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA, 476pp.

Oard, M.J. 1997. Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landsides? Creation Research Society, Monograph No. 5, Chino Valley, AZ.

Oard, M.J. 2008. “The Eocene Ice Age - Example of a Geological Challenge,” Creation Matters, v. 13, n. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 1, 6-8.

Oard, M.J. 2009a. “Landslides Win in a Landslide over Ancient 'Ice Ages'“, chapter 7 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 111-123.

Oard, M.J. and J. K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, 272pp.

Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard. 2009. “A Context for the Flood Geology Debate,” chapter 1 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 11-17.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 614pp.

Shea, J.H. 1982. “Twelve Fallacies of Uniformitarianism”, Geology, v. 10, pp. 455-460.

Strahler, A.N. 1987. Science and Earth History- The Evolution/Creation Controversy, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York, USA, 552pp.