[uniformitarianism vs. non-unif.]
> I don't think I framed it that way. I guess if by uniformitarian, you mean
That had been my impression from the posts at the start of the thread. I
could have been misunderstanding what you meant by the term, however.
> methodological uniformitarinaism, both explanations are based upon that
> (this would allow a Mt. St Helens or a naturalistic global diluvial
> catastrophe). I think what was accomplished at Yellowstone speaks only to
> the need to consider other explanations than those currently in vogue in
> science when it comes to issues of historical geology. This has almost
> nothing to do with conventional experimental science. The nature of
> research in historical geology requires quite a different tentativeness
> that that of, say physics or chemistry.
So what is at stake in the Yellowstone area for flood geology? At stake
for conventional geology is a potentially interesting site where an
Eocene forest with all its particulars has been fossilized for study.
This simple view would appear to have been overturned, in large part due
to the efforts of flood geologists like Coffin. Whether there is anything
salvageable of the original potential seems unclear at this point, but,
at any rate, there doesn't seem to be any active interest in using the
site for this sort of study anyway.
It doesn't seem to me, though, that either the complexity of the Specimen
Ridge area (which certainly isn't an undisturbed 'fossil forest') or
proposed methods for disturbances (tree parts floating in) says much about
either uniformitarianism or flood geology. As I said, the disturbance is
proposed with analogy to currently-active processes on Mt. St. Helens, which
is exactly a uniformitarian claim.
-Greg