IV. SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS TO GEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION.

The geological theory of the development of this world by the cooling off of a lurid mass of molten matter, and its progression to the happy consummation of eternal congelation, when geologists, monkeys, and every other living thing shall have frozen to death, has been laid before the reader as the outcome of geological science, as interpreted by the latter-day apostles and prophets of atheism and unbelief.

A theory of such immense pretensions, and of such tremendous predictions, ought to be strongly supported, for every word of Professor Winchell's prediction is logically deducible from the theory of a cooling universe. Not only our earth, but our sun, and every sun in the sky, must, if that theory be true, at last become the prey of frost and death everlasting. But we deny the theory, and urge against it the following

SIX OBJECTIONS.

First, it is not proven; second, the advocates of evolution materially contradict each other, both as to the facts and consequences; third, it is contrary to all principles of steam pressure and hydrostatics; fourth, it is contradicted by the temperature of the ocean, and, fifth, the recent discovery of the aqueous origin of granite reverses the whole theory; and, finally, any theory founded in ignorance of the earth's interior, insults our

common sense.

1. The Logical Basis of the Theory will not Carry its Weight.

Even were the facts granted, they would not prove the theory. One of the principal facts relied on, is the spheroidal shape of our globe, slightly flattened at the

poles, as would be the result had it been in a semi-fluid state when set to rotate. But it would have assumed the same shape had its fluidity been occasioned by water as by fire. A mass of mud would take the same shape under rotation as a mass of lava of the same consistence.

Another of the principal facts alleged for its support is the discovery of tropical plants and animals in the lower strata of the earth, in what are now temperate climes; whence it was inferred that the whole globe has cooled since the days of the coal plants.

But if it be granted that plants requiring equally great heat and moisture are now growing in the tropics, then the most that can be inferred is a change of climate. Besides, geologists are pretty well agreed that all the northern continents were once traversed by floating icebergs in the glacier period. It would be equally legitimate to infer from this that the earth is heating, rather than cooling, since those regions are now temperate.

Another, and perhaps the chief fact relied upon to prove the molten condition of the earth's interior at the present time is the gradual increase of terrestrial heat as we descend into mines, for the very short distance we can penetrate the earth. From this it is inferred that the same ratio of increase of temperature toward the centre prevails in the impenetrable depths, under unknown and totally different conditions of gravity, pressure, conduction, and electro-magnetism. It would be equally logical to invert the process, and argue that as atmospheric temperature diminishes in the sunshine, in the tropics, from the sea level to the snow line, 18° for every mile of ascent from the earth's surface, therefore the temperature of space one hundred millions of miles from the earth's mountain tops is not less than 1,800,000000° below zero.

Sir John Herschel gives an illustration of the argument

which has all the force of a reductio ad absurdum: "Now only consider what sort of a conclusion this lands us in. This globe of ours is 8000 miles in diameter: a mile deep on its surface is a mere scratch. If a man had twenty great-coats on, and I found under the first a warmth of 60° above the external air, I should expect to find 60° more under the second, and 60° more under the third, and within all, no man, but a mass of red-hot iron. Just so with the outside crust of the earth. Every mile thick is such a great-coat, and at twenty miles depth, according to this rate, the ground must be fully red-hot," etc.* This is not written in ridicule of the theory; though there is not a ten-year-old boy who, on a wintry day, would not laugh at the notion of finding himself red-hot upon stripping off his coat, vest, etc., because while the air is at zero, the temperature under his great-coat is 60° Fahrenheit.

This mistake of the geologists reminds us of the similar miscalculation of the ancient Greek geographers; who, finding that the surface of the earth grew warmer as we approach the south, agreed that the heat would continue to increase as we approached the tropics, which must be uninhabitable from excessive heat. They had much better reasons for this conclusion than the geologists for their theory of the molten interior of the earth. The result in both cases, however, showed they were both reasoning from a very narrow range of facts, and that the if, which in each case they inserted into their proposition-if the heat continued to increase in that ratio— was utterly unfounded and erroneous. Every scientific theory which rests one end of the arch upon an if, must be merely hypothetical.

The existence of metals in veins of the rocks is adduced in proof of these metals having been vaporized by heat.

*Familiar Lectures, II.

There is not, however, the beginning of any agreement among geologists as to the manner or causes of the formation of these metallic veins, in which the wealth of the world is treasured. Werner alleges that they are formed by aqueous solutions filtered in from the top. Hutton affirms, with equal confidence, that they were filled by melted matter injected from the bottom. Sedgwick supposes they were produced by chemical separation of the materials while the rock was soft. Becquerel alleges that they were formed by electro-chemical action; and that he both makes and reduces ores in his galvanic battery, without the aid of mercury; which if true is a valuable discovery to miners. But Buckland suggests that the metals have been vaporized by intense heat, and the vapor has condensed in the veins. Geologists should agree among themselves on the causes of mineral veins before they bring forward their alleged causes as proof to the world.

Various attempts have been made to invest geological speculations of this sort with a quasi respectability by clothing them in mathematical reasonings, and algebraic symbols. Schmidt, Hopkins, and Zimmerman have pretended to calculate the nature and size of the rifts and mountain peaks and chains which the eruptions of a central molten sea would produce. As they hold the manufacture of all the elements of the problem in their own hands, the depth of the inner sea, its density, the amount of its expansive forces, the thickness of the crust, the rigidity of its materials, etc.,-and may state them in any figures they please without risk of contradiction, they can, of course, make very pretty and elaborate calculations. But when competent scholars review these geological mathematics the following is their verdict, not more severe than well deserved, "A mature consideration of the subject will make us hesitate to ascribe much

value to the labors of those writers who have applied mathematical reasoning to geological questions. Such reasoning, when it is carried to the extent which requires symbolical processes, has always been, I conceive, a source, not of knowledge, but of error and confusion; for in such applications the real questions are slurred over in the hypothetical assumptions of the mathematician, while the calculation misleads its followers by the false aspect of demonstration. All symbolical reasonings. concerning the fissures of a semi-rigid mass produced by elevatory or other forces, appear to me to have turned out valueless."* In this conclusion every man of common sense not pledged to a theory will heartily concur. Such calculations of a man's own fancies are most mathematically visionary.

If the facts alleged by geological evolutionists were all granted, they would by no means prove their theory of the igneous fusion of the earth.

2. The Advocates of Geological Evolution Contradict each other's Statements of the Fundamental Facts of the Case.

We have already seen that Mr. Herbert Spencer, from the very same facts adduced by the geologists, deduced a contrary conclusion, namely; that instead of the earth. and the universe cooling down, it is now on the contrary heating up; and that the earth must fall into the sun and be burned up. Now the possibility of so learned an evolutionist as Mr. Spencer inventing a contrary theory is prima facie evidence of the absence of any sufficient proof of the other; and is, besides, a great encouragement to other inventors and manufacturers of theories. And this method of mutual contradiction extends through all the system.

The great objection to the "clear view" of the igneous

*Whewell's History of the Inductive Sciences, Vol. II. p. 557.