THE ERRORS OF EVOLUTION. GEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. ITS PEDIGREE, PRETENSIONS, AND PREDICTIONS. Geology takes up the science of world-making where astronomy leaves it. Of course, if the astronomical theory of cosmogony be proved false, the geology which is founded on this falsehood must be erroneous also. We have shown the falsehood of the Nebular Theory from the discoveries of science, and it might seem superfluous to proceed any farther with the geology founded upon such a chimera. But geologists are very often ignorant of any science save their own; and, moreover, quite contemptuous in their treatment of other scientific men, and quite persistent in reiterating anything they once begin to say. Though, as we shall see by-and-by, every generation of geologists overturns the theory of its fathers, to build a brand-new system out of the materials, it is almost impossible to eject the system-builder from his favorite structure. He is generally as immovably fixed in his blunders as one of his own boulders in a quagmire; only the unlucky boulder does not boast of his bad luck, or of his stupidity in rolling into the mire and staying there. We naturally cherish a strong suspicion of any geological theories of creation. They are to be suspected, at the very outset, as coming from a rash and careless source of speculation. Indeed, as a general principle, it is exceedingly desirable at the present day to abate the superstitious reverence of our youth for anything which calls itself science. What is science? What do they know about it? Of what value to mankind have been the ninety-nine hundredths of all the speculations of scientific men? Science, reader, so far as you and I are concerned, is whatever scientific men please to tell us; and they are pleased frequently to tell us very wonderful tales. How much of them to believe is not always easy to discover; but no man save a fool will swallow everything a scientific man may tell him as science. The Papist, who receives all the conflicting opinions of the fathers as his faith, has a moderate load of inconsistencies in his stomach, compared with the scholar who accepts all the theories of geology which scientific men have given to the world. It may be said that science is the knowledge of truth, the interpreter of nature; and, therefore, true science is infallible. We demur. True science is true, no doubt of it; but how do you know that your science is true? Nature is infallible; but her interpreters are men of like passions with ourselves; and, with reverence be it spoken, one of these is a very strong desire to expose the mistakes of their predecessors, companions, and rivals. Thus, in tracing the history of geology, we find adverse facts. and hostile theories arrayed against each other. The facts without the theories never were, and never will be, of the least interest to the world. Who cares about the destinies of crabs, crocodiles, and cave bears? It is only as they are related to theories of creation and development that they possess the slightest interest for mankind. In truth, of theories of creation geology has been prolific. But in tracing the succession and conflicts of these theories our faith in the infallibility of science receives a shock, of the same kind as the believer in the infallibility of the Romish Church receives, when he reads of the controversies of the one hundred and fifty-seven sects who anathematized each other within her pale. A general scepticism of geological theories necessarily results from a review of the succession of baseless notions which geologists have obtruded upon the world. The idea of placing such speculations for a moment on a level with any ascertained historical fact, or authentic document, could only excite a smile on the face of any one familiar with their origin. But our college boys are ignorant of the history of such theories; and therefore bow down to them as veritable gods of science. Let us visit the workshop where these deities are manufactured, and, as the best exorcism for such scientific superstition, let us briefly review I. THE HISTORY AND PEDIGREE OF GEOLOGY. Geologists cannot raise any objection to such a course of examination, since each author begins his work with a review of his predecessor's discoveries. Indeed Mr. Herbert Spencer formally argues the value of such an investigation of the genealogy of any science, as follows: "Inquiring into the pedigree of an idea is not a bad means of roughly estimating its value. To have come of respectable ancestry is prima facie evidence of worth, in a belief, as in a person: while to be descended from a discreditable stock is, in the one case as in the other, an unfavorable index. The analogy is not a mere fancy. Beliefs, together with those who hold them, are modified, little by little, in successive generations, and as the modifications which successive generations of the holders undergo do not destroy the original type, but only disguise and refine it, so the accompanying alternatives of belief, however much they purify, leave behind the essence of the original belief." He proceeds accordingly to show |