Talk:Catastrophism

snowball earth

What about the "Snowball Earth" theory? That comes from real scientists... does it qualify?

Also read Asteroid impact if you think that such events are unlikely.

I've always associated this theory with Cuvier, but neither this article nor the article on him make the association. Am I just wrong?(unsigned)

Omission corrected. Vsmith 01:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added an entire new subsection to more correctly present the views of Cuvier and of the English natural theologians of the early 19th century. Rusty Cashman 23:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

floods

Actually, the Missoula Floods seem a good example of a much earlier discovery contrary to uniformitarianism though not one with global reprecussions. - KarlHallowell 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

Was the Palmer book used as a reference for writing this or listed as a further source? Also, what is the ISBN? I don't find that title on Amazon or bookfinder.com. Do find two later books by Palmer (1999 and 2003). Vsmith 23:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ackerman/velikovsky

I removed what appears to be a promotional bit about books published by a vanity press. An attempt to revive the velikovsky cruft. Vsmith 00:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pernicious nonsense

I've removed it again. It was online long enough for a blog to latch onto it and use it to bash Wikipedia: http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2006/10/object-lesson-in-wiki-research-this.html It was inserted by nearly identical anon IP addresses.

• 66.82.9.90 contribs (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2006 UTC. [1] 7 days.
• 66.82.9.56 contribs (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2006 UTC. [2] almost 6 hours.
• 66.82.9.73 contribs (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2006 UTC. [3] 66 minutes.
• 66.82.9.85 contribs (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2006 UTC. [4] 10 minutes.

Hu 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It keeps getting re-added by a vigilant and non-communicative anon. -- Stbalbach 16:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A.H. Delsemme

We should add references to A.H. Delsemme's book, "Our Cosmic Origins", which gives a very thorough analysis of the various "catastrophes" which paved the way to life: Jupiter disrupting planetoids early in the Solar System's formation, Earth's collision with a Mars-sized planetoid (formation of the moon and destruction of Earth's initial CO2-rich atmosphere), later cometary bombardment of Earth (which enriched Earth's "new" atmosphere), various discussions on fundamental chemical reactions and elements abundance, etc. The author does not advocate panspermia. Rather, he tries to isolate the various events which helped life emerge. All in all, a very interesting book. -- Hugo Dufort 10:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

UNIFORMITARIANISM vs GRADUALISM

Am confused. Always thought that Uniformitarianism was, basically, same natural laws + same processes = same results. So, while I agree that Uniformitarianism may imply Gradualism, how does it require Gradualism?

````David Tisdale

Uniformitarianism is a term that is used a couple of different ways in science. Historically in geology it has been associated with the views advocated by Charles Lyell that the geological features of the earth could be explained by the long term action of forces that can still be observed in action in the present day. This view was put forward in direct opposition to the idea that the earth had been shaped by catastrophic (and possibly supernatural) events in its past. As the article makes clear this view advocated by Lyell is really a combination of uniformitarianism (using the philosophy of science defintion you use) and the assumption of gradualism. Even if this usage is not entirely consistent with the modern definitions it is still appropriate for this article, as the 2 labels (uniformitariansim and catastrophism) for these viewpoints are widely known, and the debate between them was historically very important in the development of the earth sciences.Rusty Cashman 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in germanspeaking countries it is common to oppose gradualism to catastrophism as theories about the history of the earth (smoothe and slow vs. quick and dirty), while uniformitarianism ("Aktualismus") is rather seen as a method or an axiom of geological investigation. Hereby "Aktualismus" is opposed to "Ekzeptionalismus" (the view, that there may have existed processes in the past, which do not happen today anymore (like the formation of Banded Iron Formations), or in the extreme case: that the laws of nature may have changed during the course of time (like the change of the gravitational constant, proposed by Paul Dirac). I wonder if there is any term like "exceptionalism" in english? Greets Geoz (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why catastrophism is not uniformitarian? After all, asteroids and volcanoes are real, observable objects which are assumed to act with laws of physics, same as today. Alliumnsk (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Einstein bit

The part about Immanuel Velikovsky that says "Not all scientists however shared this viewpoint, and Albert Einstein remained a close friend of Velikovsky's until his death." needs a source. Gedfan (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided several sources for the entire paragraph, and made it clear that while Einstein may have been his friend he carefully avoided endorsing most of his ideas.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sedimentology research

The study cited - or at least the publicity blurbs, haven't seen the Science article - says nothing about catastrophism.

===Recent developments regarding formation of geological landscapes ===

The longstanding understanding of how the "sedimentary geological record" was formed is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th edition of Science, counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists that mud only settles when water is placid, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly."

What is most interesting for students of the geological and fossil record is how this research potentially overturns the previous view on mudstone deposition, erosion, and re-deposition, as the press release outlines:

"The finding feels like something of a vindication, Schieber says. He and his colleagues have (genially) argued about whether muds could deposit from rapidly flowing water. Schieber had posited the possibility after noting an apparent oddity in the sedimentary rock record."

Schieber noted that, "In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud - all in the same place... The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation."

Simply does not belong in the article. Seems to be synthesis or original research to make that jump. It is simply a study of sedimentological processes, a refinement of scientific understanding. Vsmith (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually does belong in the article, as it does indeed deal with "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science". Perhaps the confusion lies in the wording of the subhead title, so I've retitled that.

And it's not OR, as it simply reports what the Science article reports - which is about the challenge to catastrophism. Goo2you (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

claiming that it is "supporting catastrophism" as your section title does, is blatant (and fallacious) WP:OR. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not, any more than claiming the "Luis Alvarez impact event hypothesis" or "Moon-formation" entries support "Catastrophism re-emerging and re-examined by science" is WP:OR. Please be reasonable here. Goo2you (talk 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not established even the slightest connection between the cited article and catastrophism, let alone support from it for catastrophism. It is you who is being unreasonable here. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) In order to make your case, you must demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully with this revision you will finally be satisfied that the connection exists, as established by multiple reliable sources, and no OR is occurring. Otherwise, someone might start to think that you own this article. Some friendly advice:

"If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later... Since working on an article does not entitle you to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her..."

Perhaps the real issue here is that this challenge to uniformitarianism in the geologic record means that, as Macquaker and Bohacs infer, a huge tower of interpretation, touching on fields as diverse as climate change, earth history and even solar system dynamics, has been built on a flawed assumption: that mudstones always settled out slowly in calm water. Now that the assumption is shown to be unfounded, it is not just the geologists who will have to consider a paradigm shift. And paradigm shifts hurt. Goo2you (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: the sentence you provided making the link between the article and catastrophism is pure WP:OR:"The longstanding view that the accumulations of the "sedimentary geological record" could not have been formed catastrophically, but instead were largely settled from slow-moving or still suspensions, is being challenged as being in error, according to research by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Not a single source (reliable or otherwise) making the linkage in sight. What part of "demonstrate, without resorting to WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that the cited article lends substantive support to catastrophism" did you fail to comprehend? As for your "friendly advice", it should not surprise you that I don't take advice as to my conduct from disruptive and tendentious editors. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, the link between the article and catastrophism is established quite clearly within the cited article itself. What we are dealing with here appears to be a problem with WP:NPOV, not WP:OR, as evidence by your (now third) personal attack on me in this comment. Perhaps if you took a few days off, cooled off for a while, and maybe edited articles that you aren't so personally attached to and that tend to make you "more than a little irate" when you don't like another editors encyclopedic edits. Just a friendly suggestion. Goo2you (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Goo2you: needless to say I consider your assessment and your "suggestion" to be spurious and self-serving. Rather than continue to engage in a low-intensity edit-war with yourself, I have templated and tagged the disputed section. The specific statements that I am requesting direct quotes (preferably the entire paragraph, to ensure context) on, on this talkpage, to ensure that they are not WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are:

• that the research in question "challanged as being in error" "The longstanding view that the accumulations of the 'sedimentary geological record' could not have been formed catastrophically"
• that the research "counters the prevailing uniformitarian view of geologists"

Failure to substantiate these points, with aforementioned quotations, will result in the section being deleted again. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a geologist and I read the Science paper in question when it came out. It is interesting work but NOT in any way supportive of "catastrophism" in the way portrayed in this article. In fact, because experimental evidence was used in the study to interpret parts of the rock record, it is by definition classic uniformitarianism. Now we know that muds can accumulate in fast-moving water -- this does not overthrow any paradigms of sedimentary geology. We've expanded what we know about sedimentation. Most fine-grained sediments can still be conclusively shown to have been deposited in slow-moving waters. This section should be removed from this article because it is simply not related to the topic. I'd do it myself, but I'm still very new to Wikipedia. I encourage someone else to do it right. Wilson44691 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wilson44691 -- I rather suspected that was the case, and have reverted the article on the basis of your comment. We seem to have a consensus here that the section does not belong in this article. I would therefore suggest that it should not be reintroduced without discussion that leads to a change of this consensus. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Goo2you is playing out the same argument on Uniformitarianism (science), with a similar consensus to reject it. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 04:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC) And Sedimentology too -- he have been a busy boy. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 04:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Pseudoscience category?

I'm assuming that this article is in the pseudoscience category because of its association with creationism. However, there are modern, scientifically-accepted variants of catastrophism that have nothing to do with creationism — and they're even mentioned in the article! I think the connection to pseudoscience needs to be clarified, or the article made more general and less creationism-specific and the category tag removed entirely. --Sapphic (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should there have to be some exclusion of creationist views? Creationism is in harmony with the thermodynamic laws much more than any evolutionary theory could ever hope to be. The assertion that reality emerged as a creative act by an outside being is completely logical. I am in favor of treating both theories equally and neutrally so that readers can evaluate the information and decide for themselves what they will adhere to or reject. Your comments above sound very much like a censor keeping people from knowing that there are other valid views to be explored. Obviously I have my own opinions about evolutionary models but I don't try to censor them away to bolster my position.CatastrophicOne (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So true! The First Law of Thermodynamics states that: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form" or "energy is always conserved"...Lets include both sides of the argument and let the readers decide for themselves..--Gniniv (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of biological organisms does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's some old creationists arguments that even Ken Ham objects to. The first law talks about the conservation of energy. I have not seen any cases where it is said that organisms produce energy from nothing or destroy energy. The second law is about entropy, which is about converting one type of energy into another. For example, a system that would claim that it can convert thermal energy into something else without any differential in thermal energy is not possible according to this law. No such thing occurs with biological systems. Biological systems usually start off with photons which come from the Sun. Some systems use certain molecules to start off, such as H2S. I'll let you read about the 3rd one and get back to me. As for god or gods, they certainly do violate such laws. After all, how did they create things? Vmelkon (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

NeoCatastrophism

The term NeoCatastrophism has been around since at least 1990. The concept has been around since at least the 1970s. The following is by anti-creationist and evolutionist Richard Huggett who is/was a geology lecturer at the U. of Manchester.

Catastrophism: Systems of Earth History

RICHARD HUGGETT

Lecturer, School of Geography, University of Manchester

Pub: Edward Arnold: A division of Hodder & Stoughton LONDON

1990

p5

The purpose of this book is to explore past and present systems of Earth history, and especially the old and new catastrophism, with a view to seeing the shape that neocatastrophism might take in the future, thus giving rudimentary form to Thorn's 'fully articulated standpoint'. Before proceeding to the meat of the text, a general discussion on the nature of catastrophes and catastrophism will be given with the aim of clarifying problematical issues in a subject beset with misinterpretations and misunderstandings

p194-6

Neocatastrophism and uniformitarianism

The evidence for sudden and violent events having occurred during the course of Earth history is very strong. It is far less clear whether the catastrophic events were caused by terrestrial or cosmic causes. But, whatever their origin, if grand catastrophes have occurred then the tenets of uniformitarianism collapse. It is rather curious, therefore, to find that recent attempts to reevaluate catastrophism in the light of demonstrable non-uniformity of rate and state in Earth history have produced rather lame results. The chief reason for this appears to be an unwillingness to let go the term uniformitarianism. For instance, to accommodate the episodic nature of rock-forming events into a gradualistic system, S. Moorbath (1977) coined the term 'episodic uniformitarianism'. Even geoscientists who hold that many episodic events occur with uncommon suddenness and violence seem reluctant to drop the term uniformitarianism. Thus, to describe his view that long intervals of gradual change in the stratigraphical record are punctuated by short bouts of sudden and violent change, Ager (1973, 1981) offered and term 'catastrophic uniformitarianism'. George W. Wetherill and Eugene M. Shoemaker (1982) went so far as to declaim that the process of cosmic bombardment does nothing to undermine the principles of uniformitarianism. They argued that the effects of cosmic encounters are catastrophic in terms of their magnitude, but applied to the interpretation of Earth history they are uniformitarian in the sense that current geological processes are used to explain the past. The mistake they made here was to equate uniformitarianism with actualism. To be sure, the bombardment hypothesis is actualistic, even though impacts have never actually been observed: the cratering record shows that impacts have occurred, possibly periodically, throughout the history of the Earth. But, impact events occur suddenly and with much violence. The bombardment hypothesis is thus at odds with one of the chief ingredients of Lyellian uniformitarianism, the substantive uniformity of rate. With the substantive uniformity of state already undermined, that means that, if the bombardment hypothesis be accepted, then both Lyell's substantive uniformities, and thus uniformitarianism, must be rejected.

Statements by neocatastrophists on the implications of cosmic catastrophism for the neo-Darwinian system of organic history carry much more of a punch. In his book The Nemesis Affair (1986), David M. Raup sees the current debate over cosmic process and mass extinctions as a battle between the ideas espoused by Cuvier on the one hand and Lyell on the other. Likewise, Kenneth Hsii (1986) contends that the new perspective on mass extinctions compels geologists and palaeobiologists to shake the Lyellian and Darwinian scales from their eyes. Antoni Hoffman (1989b) thinks that such extreme views go too far. He opines that Raup errs in pointing to Cuvier as a godfather of global mass extinctions: Cuvier recognized discontinuities in the fossil record in the Paris Basin and explained them by a series of local catastrophes; a truer progenitor is William Buckland who did envision worldwide catastrophes. But, the question of grandparentage aside, Hoffman believes that the twentieth-century debate over mass extinctions, unlike the debate slogged out during the early nineteenth century, 'hinges more upon the assessment of the quality and meaning of empirical data of stratigraphy and historical geology rather than upon the patterns of thought established long ago by Brocchi, Cuvier, Buckland, Lyell and Darwin - especially since those patterns were incomparably more complex than a simple black-and-white clich6 of catastrophism versus uniformitarianism . . . would suggest' (Hoffman, 1989b, 23). To Hoffman, the current revival of the concept of geologically instantaneous global biotic crises is not a revolution against the allegedly gradualist system of the geosciences, is not a collapse of the fortress of prejudice and dogma which for long suppressed the rival viewpoint on Earth's and life's history, but is a consequence of new discoveries and new refinements in stratigraphical time correlation (Hoffman, 1989b, 23). Admittedly, only empirical investigations can reveal whether mass extinctions have occurred. But the existence of catastrophic events which could give rise to mass extinctions seems beyond doubt. If these catastrophic changes in the physical world have actually led to mass extinctions, then the neo-Darwinian system is severely shaken. Gould (1985) makes this point very clearly: if mass extinctions are indeed caused by occasional bombardment episodes, if they are more frequent, more rapid, more extensive, and more different qualitatively in effect than traditionally expected, then the microevolutionary processes invoked by the neo-Darwinians are inadequate to explain the shape of the biosphere. Thus it is possible that current revival of catastrophism might well signal the downfall of Lyellian and neo-Darwinian doctrines. It is certainly doing for geoscience what the high-fibre diet has done for constipation.

I did not invent the term. Ignornace is no excuse. I'm changing it back. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Then I would suggest that the article needs to delineate 'Neo-Catastrophism' (and its development) rather than simply baldly introducing science's 'examination' of it. Parachuting in new terms without explanation is bound to raise suspicions of WP:OR. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub> 03:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Atra-Hasis

I'm not sure how this is relevant. The article is not about catastrophes but something quite different, catastrophism. And it certainly is not a place to start claiming Antarctica is Atlantis. dougweller (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the focus of this article is geology, not mythology. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub><sup>(P)</sup> 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Such material belongs in Deluge myth, not here. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub><sup>(P)</sup> 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Velikovsky & Einstein

The remark that Velikovsky and Einstein remained friends from 1946 to Einstein's death in 1955 needs to be rephrased because the two were out of contact from 1946 to 1953 when Velikovsky addressed the Princeton Graduate Forum, which lecture Einstein did not attend for fear of what his attendance would do to his reputation. Instead, as Velikovsky remarks in Stargazers and Gravediggers, Einstein sent two women from his household to the lecture as intermediaries. It should also be noted that the two men did not see each other from 1923 in Berlin until they happened to meet at a lake at Princeton in 1952 or thereabouts. Their interaction in 1946 was entirely by correspondence with Einstein in Princeton and Velikovsky in New York. 128.252.65.183 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

== Bias ==

I've been reading this page, and I have noticed that it is biased towards the supposed proof of Uniformitarianism over Catastrophism and other hypotheses as verified facts. It needs to be edited heavily to provide a neutral tone toward the subject and possible related subjects, such as the Creationist view of science (which is not pseudoscience). Because this topic deals largely with non-verifiable hypotheses on both sides, it needs to be treated with caution and respect for both opinions as both are possible.

Romulo San Juan de Soto (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A discussion of catastrophism is a study of bias. The Creationist view is not science, it is pseudoscience: the "supposed proof" is avoided only by the unlettered. Complaints of "bias" do always seem to have the subtext, as here, "not my point-of-view". The evolution of Catastrophism in the history of ideas receives an unbiased report in the present article, which could be expanded and improved— though not, hopefully, by tagging it as "not my point of view"--Wetman (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The following are defenses of Creationism as a scientific theory in the Geology Discussion Page

==Catastrophic Geology Debate (or the Validity of an Alternative View of Creationism as a valid Scientific Theory)==

The one-user campaign to add a "catastrophic geology" (a mildly used term at most) section to the main geology page (along with other questionable edits) is at best, a misguided irrelevant sidebar, and at worse, a veiled Creationist infiltration, in my humble opinion. Thoughts? Shouldn't there be an actual article about this topic, before it is thrust on the main geology page? Does the main geology page need some kind of protection? I'm no admin, so there isn't mush I can do but shake my head.Qfl247 (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the user to discuss here rather than revert warring. The sources used are not reliable. Vsmith (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that edit wars are useless. Before I move on to less dogmatically defended topics, I will put my replies to the criticism and my defenses on this talk page (Please see below...) --Gniniv (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:3rr and discuss your concerns on the article talk rather than edit warring. Also, please read reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence to preserve article integrity. As all my claims are thoroughly referenced and legitimate information (Please feel free to check all of them) and I have not deleted any prior information I believe this section can stay. --Gniniv (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines, your edits to the geology page are scary... at least two are directly Creationist Propaganda, and many others are nearly so. Only real science please, and that means real articles from real peer-reviewd publications. And yes, some of yours are that, but the important once you use are certainly not. Qfl247 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your persistence to uphold "pure science"-but science itself is defined as the investigation of all evidence and the formation of a theory that attempts to explain the results. It is not the formation of a certain theory (whether that theory be currently accepted or not) and the dogmatic insistence that all alternative theories are not "pure science". Please also recognise that even if this reply is considered insane, all alternative ideas must be accepted in a free encyclopaedia like wikipedia, no matter how zany!--Gniniv (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also realise someone of an alternative viewpoint could easily call this suppression of a legitimately referenced Catastrophic Geology section as Uniformatarian Propaganda....--Gniniv (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I intend to create a new article on Catastrophic Geology, due to suppression of the topic on the main page. Feel free to contribute!--Gniniv (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All alternative ideas must be accepted: No, WP:WEIGHT.

I think that your terminology on the debate is antiquated as well. Uniformitarianism and catastrophism are outdated and over-simplified; catastrophic events do happen, as does the slow march of time.

Pure scientists indeed do view all evidence.

Also, if you could please try to write in non-bold, it would be easier on the eyes. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it hurts my eyes to come think of it! I agree that minority view topics (which Catastrophic Geological Theory is definitely among) should be properly referenced and substantiated as all topics should be. If you check out the Catastrophic Geology article you can help contribute to its inclusion of both sides of the issue.--Gniniv (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) --Gniniv (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There never has been nor will there be a "pure science or scientist". All scientists view evidence through a "magic" ideology lense in which they align the given evidence according to their philosophy. The trick is recognising this innate bias and including people with different theories on a given set of evidence in the discussion. Resorting to calling views that do not agree with one's own, pseudo-scientific, or worse, will not advance the cause of scientific discovery one inch. Note that many of the great discoveries of science that we look back on today were formulated against a strong mainstream opposition to the researcher's theory. See Copernicus, Galileo--Gniniv (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC) '

This is incorrect. Scientists observe and report based on empirical evidence and physical first principals. Certainly they do not do this perfectly, but to say that "all scientists are biased" would need some really strong backing, because the scientific method is really an attempt to escape bias. Awickert (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

True, the scientific method is designed to eliminate bias as much as possible, but surely you recognise that experimental error and data tracking can influence the result-perhaps drastically. I appreciate that you are at least willing to debate on our differing viewpoints, the other editors just ignore my challenges.--Gniniv (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with what you say here, although the perhaps drastically part would happen only when people really screw up with their interpretations and the error bars (i.e., not often, and when it happens, other scientists generally quickly point it out). I still don't see where your initial claims that scientists make observations to fit with a certain ideology work out. Awickert (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Future Plans for Catastrophism

I am going to place the Moon Formation Theory Section under Catastrophic Geology, I think it fits better there.--Gniniv (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to increase the neutrality and references of this article to the point where it will be recognized on the main Geology page, and possibly merged with it in the future. I recognize its current neutrality (from both perspectives) leaves something to be desired. Any thoughts? I would welcome more editors from both points of view to work on this article..--Gniniv (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this merge is going to happen. Catastrophism is an important entity in the history of thought, and so I see no reason to remove it. Furthermore, this sort of philosophical debate is absent from modern geology. Awickert (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is unlikely that this merge will happen-due to lack of willingness of modern geology's proponents to debate with challenges to their consensus on theories pertaining to the age of the earth etc..--Gniniv (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is because there is widespread evidence that they are right, and nothing to the contrary outside of interpretations of religious texts. It is a done deal. Awickert (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Catastrophic Geology... wording makes the point unclear

The article currently contains the following paragraph (I remove the citations so we can see the sentence flow):

• Many Catastrophic Geologists interpret the rock strata as much younger than the mainstream scientific consensus holds them to be. Catastrophists cite examples of geological change happening in a matter of months, instead of millions of years, as is widely taught. The most significant advances in 20th century geology has been the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s. Plate tectonic theory arose out of two separate geological observations: seafloor spreading. The theory revolutionized the Earth sciences. Catastrophic Geology and other alternative theories have been partly introduced in non-western countries such as Turkey.

The paragraph starts off fine... explaining what the view point of those who support Catastrophic Geography is... but then it veers off track. The last few sentences (from "The most significant..." through "...such as Turkey") seem disjointed and not really connected to the first part. I am not sure if the article is trying to say that the theory of plate tectonics is part of Catastrophic Geology (doubtful) or that plate tectonics refutes Catastrophic Geology (more likely, but in which case... how?). And why does the paragraph end with the mention of Turkey? Is Catastrophic Geology uniquely Turkish or something? Is there a "Turkish school" of Catastrophic Geology that is different from other theories of Catastrophic Geology? Why is this sentence there? Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the references give a clue. AiG, Jay L. Wile of Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., and the ICR. Primary sources of fringe views, without the benefit of a reliable third party source. . . dave souza, talk 17:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So do we cut the confusing material or clarify? Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole section looks like a combination of creationist nonsense, original research and a few more reliable sources which probably make no mention of "Catastrophic Geology" – I've not checked them all, but this one notes the activities of the notorious creationist Adnan Oktar but doesn't include the term "catastrophic" or even "geology". Suggest deleting the section, if a reliable third party can be shown discussing this alleged position then that can be used as a basis for reinstatement. . . dave souza, talk 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree... consider it DONE. Thanks for your input. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am going to re-insert the section due to the fact that all my sources are valid, and Catastrophism needs to give credit to YEC researchers who have advanced its cause. I am fine if we debate the issue but cutting all of it is to drastic.--Gniniv (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that Catastrophism is a psuedoscience ignores its contributions to Geologic thought, even amongst uniformitarian scientists. Deleting the controversy section leaves out a thouroghly referenced addition that adds information about the subject....Gniniv (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to get consensus here first, please stop this. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Gniviv, you obviously feel that this is an important section... OK... then rather than edit warring and reverting... let's discuss what you are trying to say and figure out if there is a better, less confusing, wording that gets the point across and is supported by reliable sources. To start... in your own words, what information are you trying to convey in the section? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Catastrophism article needs a section on the ongoing controversy the subject has spawned in the field of origins and mainstream scientific thought--Gniniv (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Since I came here to attempt to fix language and wording confusions, and am not all that familiar with the topic... would you please outline what that ongoing controversy is? What do the various sides of the debate say? Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for questioning my claims. Here is how I perceive the debate. Catastrophism has taken renewed prominence the Uniformitarian line "the present is the key to the past" has fallen out of favor due to recent evidence (such as the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens) that rapid change can occur in Geological enviroments. The controversy is between the moderates (those who still recognise the principles of Uniformitarianism, while also accepting that Catastrophic events sometimes shape environments more rapidly-Modern Scientific Consensus) and the more radical (those who propose the current geological configuration of the earth is almost entirely due to catastrophic events-YEC)--Gniniv (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that my proposed section needs work, all that I ask is that it is edited, not removed....--Gniniv (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that your perception of "the debate" is anachronistic. This was a debate back in the very early 20th century, but was pretty sealed by the early-mid 20th century.

You should also note the edit comments I made when I removed references to the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. Do you have evidence for this being important in geological thought, or is it just your own syntehsis? (I don't think it had any impact on this, though it did have a lot in terms of volcanic hazards.) Awickert (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points that need to be improved in the article. The catastrophists, so named by Whewell at the same time as he coined the term uniformitarians, believed what we'd now call old earth creationism, they had long abandoned the YEC position on the age of the earth. The catastrophist / uniformitarian debate took place in the 1820s to 1840s, by which time there was an effective merging of the two positions, but the polarised and partisan "history" portrayed by Lyell tends to be remembered and there have been exaggerated claims for the dominance of uniformitarianism. Further evidence of dramatic changes such as asteroid impacts has confirmed that merged position. YEC geology was a fringe religious view, notably promoted by the Prophetess Ellen White and later by George Macready Price, until the 1960s success of flood geology brought creation science to the forefront of pseudoscience, and made it a widely held religious view in the US. Have sources to hand, will aim to edit this article when time permits. . . dave souza, talk 07:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I understand what is intended. The next question is... is there a reliable source that discusses and describes this debate between the moderate/uniformitarian view point and the radical/YEC view point? Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In brief, CD200: Uniformitarianism. Some examples at The Talk.Origins Archive: Catastrophism FAQs. Interestingly, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education the Act had among its definitions; "Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:.... (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood;...". There may be some other useful pages on Talk.Origins Archive. For detailed history, see Ron Numbers' The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, ISBN 0674023390, chapter 5 in the 1993 edition is "George McCready Price and the New Catastrophism". Changing Views of the History of the Earth gives a useful outline of the history of earlier geology, Flood geology#The great flood in the history of geology has some other useful sources. . . dave souza, talk 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but those sources seem to describe a debate between mainstream Geologists and Creation Science proponents. I was under the impression that the debate Gniniv was referring to was between two different groups of catastrophists. Am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems regarding the Catastrophism Article

There are serious problems with the Catastrophism article:

As soon as any new information is added to the article it is deleted. The Catastrophism article for over the last year, has remained the SAME, with any new information being deleted. The article is biased, the only reason it's been setup is to attack creationists. The REAL problem is, is that the article just talks about creationism, the article is about Casastrophism why is 60% of it just talking about the bible and Christianity?. There are many different types of Catastrophism which have NOTHING to do with religion, why are they not discussed on the article?.

I suggest a section is added to the article regarding the work of Victor Clube He is known primarily for his work in collaboration with Bill Napier and others on the theory of "coherent catastrophism". I suggest reading their books The Cosmic Serpent (1982) and The Cosmic Winter (1990). 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The 'John Ray' section has been removed because it is a copyright violation of the source that you linked to. If you produce a version that does not have this problem then it could be integrated into the article (not sure that it would justify its own section though). Your description of the article doesn't seem to match its current content, Creationism is discussed in one short section and mentioned once or twice in other sections where relevant. As to Clube, a section on 'coherent catastrophism' looks worth having see here and maybe something on 'coordinated catastrophism' as well. Mikenorton (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no problem regarding the links i put up, one of them was useful becuase it actually showed a picture of the book i was quoting. The catastrophism article is embaressing there is nothing on it, no references, no links to read through, no external websites, no listed recommended reading books, some of the references given look dead, theres nothing there no books or external websites, how can we trust these sources, they seem non existant. Considering most geology or science students thesedays just rely on wikipedia, atleast something should be added to the Catatrophism article which will actually educate people. For example Immanuel Velikovsky's views are accepted by a number of scientists, why is this not mentioned in the article? The article is biased all it wants to do is try and discredit catastrophism. It's set up to laugh at Catastrophism, i have noticed most of the people who have edited the article all are strong uniformitarianists (have a look at there user pages and their beliefs) there is a big bias here. Why does the article start at discussing Creationism? Catastrophism can be traced back atleast 4000 years (even longer), it's been found in many ancient texts around the world, why is none of this mentioned? Why is just Creationism mentioned? The second section mentions Georges Cuvier, Georges Cuvier was a great man and i like his work but he was not the first catastrophist, especially not in Europe, becuase many others such as John Ray and William Whiston (both catastrophists) pre-date his work. Again none of this is mentioned. The Article is poor, and please check the history of the Catastrophism page and you will see basically nothing has been added to the article in over a year. If you read the books Controversy - Catastrophism and Evolution: The Ongoing Debate by Trevor Palmer or Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages by Trevor Palmer you would realise Catastrophism has a huge history which is far older than just a few hundred years. The article is poorly written and misleading. I do not contribute to wikipedia at all really anymore, so i will not help out at making the page better becuase it will just get deleted. Your have to wait til someone else comes to do that (that person does not exist) becuase it's obvious that the page will not be edited with any new information it will just stay as it is. For these reasons i am out. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I note that in 'Perilous Planet Earth: Catastrophes and Catastrophism through the Ages', Trevor Palmer starts with a chapter entitled 'Mythology, religion and catastrophism' and the book follows a similar overall structure to the article - I'm not saying that the article is anything like perfect or anywhere close to complete, just that it's not quite as bad as you're painting it. You have also failed to understand copyright violation issues, you can't just copy and paste from other websites, preferring instead to see signs of some sort of conspiracy. Ray, Clube and others should be included here as you have correctly identified but Velikovsky gets quite enough coverage here already I think - you would need to present some sort of evidence of support for him in scientific circles, I can't find any. Mikenorton (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To mention ancient texts you'll need current reliable sources discussing them. It simply isn't true that " most geology or science students these days just rely on wikipedia", they wouldn't get very far if they did because our articles are too basic. I doubt that any editors here identify as 'uniformitarians', that seems to be mainly a misleading label when it's used (probably mainly by 'catastrophists') to describe current thinking and people. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

[Moved from User talk: Hrafn ]

What's your reasoning for dropping a link to an extensive external resource on Catastrophism (both now and in 2008)? kees (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The information is only tangentially related to the topic.
2. It appears to fail WP:EL#What to link "Is the site content proper in the context of the article" in that the content rambles excessively.
3. It appears to fall under WP:ELNO #2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research".
4. Given you have the same last name as the site's author, I would suspect that your inclusion of it comes under WP:COI.

Wikipedia quite simply is not a place for advertising some individual's self-published, WP:FRINGE ramblings. Hrafn<sup>Talk</sup><sub>Stalk</sub><sup>(P)</sup> 06:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of editors not familiar with "Saturnian Cosmology", the topic of the deleted link, it is a fantasy speculating on an imaginary period in the past 10,000 years or so when Earth, it is claimed, was a quasi-satellite of Saturn prior to its being captured by the Sun-Jupiter system. This "cosmology" was invented by David Talbott, taking a hint from Velikovsky's unpublished material, and in recent years Talbott has been abetted by Dwardu Cardona and Ev Cochrane writing in their journal Aeon and self-published books. There is no valid, physical evidence on Earth supporting this scenario and much evidence from multi-million year records in the shales of the Green River and Newark Basin formations showing all the planets have been in their self-same orbits for a long, long time. Oh, yes. Before Earth became a solar planet, Saturn, sitting immobile at the north pole of the equator, ruled the mythical "Golden Age" when Earth had no seasons. But the recent Greenland ice cores show that Earth had seasons for many tens of thousands of years. Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Jagged 85 cleanup

I removed this:

An alternative paradigm to the traditional view of catastrophism was proposed as early as the eleventh century by the [[Islamic geography|Persian geologist]], [[Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina, 980-1037), who provided the first uniformatarian explanations for geological processes in ''[[The Book of Healing]]''. He recognized that mountains were formed after a long sequence of events.<ref name=Goodfield>[[Stephen Toulmin]] and [[June Goodfield]] (1965), ''The Ancestry of Science: The Discovery of Time'', p. 64, [[University of Chicago Press]] ([[cf.]] [http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=319 The Contribution of Ibn Sina to the development of Earth sciences])</ref> While discussing the formation of [[mountain]]s, he explained: {{quote|"Either they are the effects of upheavals of the [[Crust (geology)|crust]] of the [[earth]], such as might occur during a violent [[earthquake]], or they are the effect of [[water]], which, cutting itself a new route, has denuded the [[valley]]s, the [[Stratum|strata]] being of different kinds, some soft, some hard... It would require a long period of time for all such changes to be accomplished, during which the mountains themselves might be somewhat diminished in size."<ref name=Goodfield/>}} Later in the eleventh century, the [[History of science and technology in China|Chinese naturalist]], [[Shen Kuo]] (1031–1095), also recognized the concept of '[[deep time]]'.<ref name="Silvin">{{cite book | last = Sivin | first = Nathan | authorlink = Nathan Sivin | title = Science in Ancient China: Researches and Reflections | publisher = Ashgate Publishing [[Variorum]] series | year = 1995 | location = [[Brookfield, Vermont|Brookfield]], [[Vermont]] | pages = III, 23–24 | nopp = true }}</ref> After ''The Book of Healing'' was [[Latin translations of the 12th century|translated into Latin in the twelfth century]], a few other natural philosophers also reasoned in uniformitarian terms.<ref name=Hassani>{{cite web|author=Munim M. Al-Rawi and [[Salim Al-Hassani]]|title=The Contribution of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to the development of Earth sciences|publisher=FSTC|url=http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/ibnsina.pdf|format=PDF|month=November | year=2002|accessdate=2008-07-01}}</ref>

The Muslim heritage site is not reliable. Avicenna's theory on the formation of mountains was considered ahead of his time (in 1830) but most of his theories on geology were not. J8079s (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall Review of Article

I think the article is a great generalization of the topic. There are sold references to back data. Some things that could be changed though are the lead section, structure, and expansion on facts. In the lead section instead of going right into a comparison between Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism add more onto the origins of Catastrophism. Religion had a huge influence on science before the 19th century so the section on creationists needs to be expanded on greatly adding more major specific events in the creationist theory that alludes to why Catastrophism plausible. From what I read in the article it seems as if Georges Cavier is one of the main scientists that have empirical evidence backing Catastrophism. Even though there is a link to the bio page of Cavier there should still be a time period when he lived, where he studied, and more information of his findings, works, and expeditions. After the history section it jumps to current applications. There is a whole chunk of about 100 years of science missing from the description. Understanding Uniformitarianism is key to understanding the history of Catastrophism but instead of throwing ideas about Uniformitarianism in here and there in the article there should be a criticisms section and that is where ideas about Uniformitarianism should be. Lastly the part about moon formation at the end looks like it was just thrown into the bottom of the article. Instead try to rework the portion about the moon in somewhere else because it is a great bit but does not fit where it is. Lgn006 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Lindsey Nourse 7:12pm February 10, 2014

With due respect to the previous contributors to the this article I would like to make following suggestions to strengthen the page. Firstly, In this wiki article about Catastrohism, I think, lead section gives a very clear idea about the article, but little more information about Cuvier and his importance in explaining Catastrophism could have intrigued readers to learn about his contribution to this field of research.

Secondly, topics seems to follow the theme of the article, but picture of Cuvier and other significant scientist might have made this article more interesting to read. In addition to that a little explanation of what Noah’s Arc is and a picture while describing creationist’s interpretation would have made this article more interesting.

Thirdly, I think, information provided under the subtitle of comparison to universalism does not gives reader any new information, so it could have been eliminated or strengthen with new information that hasn’t been previously described in the article. At the same time, information under the subtitle of current application could have been broadened a bit.

Fourthly, although I don’t doubt that the article was biased since the article almost brought up uniformitarianism and showed opposite side of the argument, it would be better to put Charles Lyell in the subtitle in describing uniformitarianism Because he was as influential as Cuvier in uniformmitarianism’s side. Abue.chowdhury (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catastrophism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624122338/http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909180136/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-56 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv4-56

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cuvier

"The leading scientific proponent of catastrophism in the early eighteenth century was the French anatomist and paleontologist Georges Cuvier." - Cuvier was born in 1769, so how can he possibly have been the leading proponent of catastrophism is the early eighteenth century? - Eroica (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, 18th seems to be simply an error, same ref used in lead for 19th so have changed it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 18:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)