It is interesting to note that Henry Morris (PhD), over at the Institute for Creation Research lay the blame for science abandoning the 'truth' of a global flood firmly at the door of the uniformitarianists:
"{I}t was necessary, first of all, that the Flood be displaced as the framework of geologic interpretation, so that earth history could once again, as in the days of the ancient Greek and Oriental philosophers, be expanded into great reaches and cycles of time over endless ages. Geologic catastrophism must be, at all costs replaced by uniformitarianism, which would emphasize the slow, uniform processes or the present as a sufficient explanation for all earth structures and past history."
He also implies that uniformitarianism is not a scientific theory:
"It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds."
What's more, it is this false requirement for uniformity that allowed Darwinism to gain its foothold in science in the first place:
"The acceptance of Lyell’s uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Darwin frequently acknowledged his debt to Lyell, who he said gave him the necessary time required for natural selection to produce meaningful evolutionary results."
So AIG claim that Darwinism is wrong because it goes against the true science of uniformity, while ICR claim that Darwinism is wrong because it is based on the false concept of uniformity.
So basically what they're saying is "I have my cake. I eat my cake. I still have my cake." (Though it's nice to see that Morris thinks an anatomist thinking he can talk learnedly about geology is as ridiculous as, oh I don't know, an astrophysicist holding forth about biology?)
http://www.icr.org/article/54/
