It seems to me, that, although the debate is framed by Art as being
one of 'non-uniformitarian' explanation vs. 'uniformitarian,' that
in reality two uniformitarian explanations are in competition--indeed,
it is precisely the argument that the Specimen Ridge trees are similar
to those near Mt. St. Helens that has helped to undermine the 'successive
fossil forest' view of the site. In what way is uniformitarianism at
stake here? Flood geologists may have argued against the successive-fossil-
forests view, and may privately hold to some kind of catastrophism, but
what has been presented is a uniformitarian argument. Where's the missing
link here?
-Greg