Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

supposed to be the oldest rocks, were found to be, so far as they had been examined in Europe, without any fossil traces of organic remains. Geology, in fact, unfortunately undertook to prove a negative, and affirmed it had succeeded in a somewhat positive manner.

But Sir Charles Lyell tells us, in his Bath address, that "late discoveries in Canada have at last demonstrated that certain theories founded in Europe on mere negative evidence were altogether delusive."

"It has been shown, he says, that northward of the river St. Lawrence, there is a vast series of stratified and crystalline rocks of gneiss, micaschist, quartzite, and limestone, about 40,000 feet in thickness, which are more ancient than the oldest fossiliferous strata of Europe, to which the term primordial had been rashly assigned;" and "in this lowest and most ancient system of crystalline strata, a limestone, about 1,000 feet thick, has been observed, containing organic remains." He adds, "We have every reason to suppose that the rocks in which these animal remains are included are of as old a date as any of the formations named Azoic in Europe, if not older, so that they preceded in date rocks once supposed to have been formed before any organized beings had been created."

Now, notwithstanding these frank admissions by Sir Charles Lyell, which were publicly made by him as President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Bath, in 1864; and although Bishop Colenso was present and heard that address delivered, the Bishop did not hesitate on the 16th of May, 1865, to use the language I have already quoted, in which he makes it a boast that he had done his best while in his diocese-that is, upwards of three years previously-to secure that the simple facts revealed by modern science should not be kept back from the heathen with whom his lot had been cast in the district of Natal! Nay, he quotes a recent utterance of Dr. Temple (I believe while preaching in Whitehall Chapel) as agreeing with himself, that these facts are utterly irreconcilable with Scripture statements! Can it be that these "educators of the world" do not read, or hear, or understand, or know what they are saying? Why, when Bishop Colenso taught what he calls "the simple facts revealed by modern science," to the Zulus,-or what he more specifically describes as "the elementary truths of geological science," which "flatly contradict the accounts of the creation and the deluge" in Holy Scripture, he must have taught the nebulous theory, and that there were azoic ages of enormous duration before living creatures were created, as Mr. Goodwin did in his Essay! He must have then taught as "simple facts" or "elementary truths of geological science," what he has himself heard Sir Charles describe as theories altogether delusive, and what-if

he would speak as plainly about science as about the Scriptures -he must now know never to have been "facts" at all," but "rash deductions," founded, at best, "upon mere negative evidence;" and he might well be asked, Whether, in his zeal for the truths he thinks are " revealed by science," he will be as anxious to make the Zulus, on going back to his late diocese, acquainted with these now acknowledged blunders in geology as he has been to let them know of the alleged blunders he thinks may be discovered in the Pentateuch as to the creation ?*

I venture to say that neither Dr. Colenso, nor any sceptical geologist on his behalf, can point to a single geological fact, or even to any respectable theory entertained and taught in any geological work now extant, which any great number of geologists would say they accept, that can in the least be considered as contradictory to the Mosaic account of the creation. There is not a geological text-book at the present time in existence that gives any other foundation for the science than the igneous theory of the earth's nucleus which Sir Charles Lyell considers "may now be dispensed with," a very gentle euphemism for a frank admission that the theory has no foundation at all to which it can appeal in the facts of geology, since the constitution of granite has been better understood. That we may have another theory, and another which may, like the last, contradict Scripture, is very possible, perhaps only too probable; but what I say is, there is no such theory yet invented. The theories that did contradict the Scriptures, as regards the original formation of the earth and its azoic rocks and ages, are pronounced ea cathedra scientiæ, to be "altogether delusive." That is the present state of the case. As regards the Creation, that is the only revelation of science which Dr. Colenso can honestly teach at present to his "Zulu philosopher!"

But no doubt Dr. Colenso might yet retort, in modern style, "What about the Deluge?" He might still appeal to the "volcanic cones of loose ashes in the valleys of Auvergne," and maintain that Sir Charles Lyell has not given up his former scientific teaching about these. He may still with Sir Charles believe that they "must have been formed ages before the Noachian deluge," and that had the deluge been universal, the light and loose substances that cover these cones I must have been swept away."

[ocr errors]

My object not being to refute the geological views of Sir Charles Lyell or Bishop Colenso, I may content myself with

* See POSTSCRIPT, pp. 32, et seq.

[ocr errors]

observing, as regards this point, that I have no reason for supposing that Sir Charles Lyell has as yet changed his opinions, and that till he does so, Dr. Colenso will probably be content to believe as he does. It is no part of my object to endeavour to prove that there are now no scientific views opposed to the Scriptures. Were that the case-had every quasi-fact and every "scientific" theory already shared the fate of the azoic ages and the "original igneous fluidity of the earth's nucleus," why then, of course, the Victoria Institute had been founded late in the day! It would have had really no occupation. I for one would never have thought of its establishment. But at the same time, I may be permitted to observe, that surely these confident appeals made by Bishop Colenso and Dr. Temple to "simple facts revealed by modern science that contradict the statements of Holy Scripture, are put forward with an unwise effrontery so soon after such large confessions by our most eminent geologist (from whom they take their science second-hand), of science contradicting itself, and of the utterly delusive character of its former "revelations" respecting the very foundation "facts" of geology. Surely when the scientific have been all out as regards the Creation of the world, after all the bold sneers in "Essays and Reviews' as to the blunders of "the Hebrew Descartes," a little modesty and somewhat less confidence might well become our once "deluded" teachers, when they come to speak now of the Deluge. There are, doubtless, men of science and authors, who have already been engaged in investigating this question of the evidence of the universality of the deluge from a scientific point of view; and who have arrived at other conclusions than those of Sir Charles Lyell.* Some of them are already members of the Victoria Institute; and it is one of the professed objects of that Society to bring such men together, to give them a fair hearing, to discuss their arguments, and further to investigate what may be regarded as the facts under discussion, and thus to get at truth. In Sir Charles Lyell's "Antiquity of Man " he informs us, that for the greater part of his scientific lifetime, he had resisted evidences he now

ور

* I may here draw attention to an able pamphlet by Mr. S. R. Pattison, F.G.S., The Antiquity of Man: An Examination of Sir C. Lyell's recent work (Lond. Lovell Reeve, 1863), and to the well-reasoned and larger work, Remarks on the Antiquity and Nature of Man, by the Rev. James Brodie, A.M. (Lond.: Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1864). In the latter work, Sir. C. Lyell's arguments, adopted by Bishop Colenso, against the Mosaic account of the Deluge, are fairly met; but my present object is not to bring forward anything that has not been acknowledged by the recognized "authorities" in science.

admits of man's contemporaneous existence with certain long extinct animals. Those who are interested in the statements of the Bible, may well be anxious that no similar overwhelming influence may be successfully brought to bear against any evidences there may be in nature of the universality of the flood.

I therefore revert to the nebular theory, to show that there were not wanting men-and men, as it turns out, better entitled to the name of "men of science," than others more eminent in reputation-who contended strongly against that theory, but whose arguments were disregarded, or not allowed even a hearing before some of our existing scientific societies, which thus acted as hindrances instead of as helps to the advancement of science.

In 1844, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science met at York, the late Dean of York, Dr. Cockburn, a practical geologist, made a straightforward attack upon the nebular theory, "laid down by Dr. Buckland, in his Bridgewater Treatise, as to the original formation of the earth," upon this very sufficient ground, namely, "because that theory will not account for the many facts made known to us by geologists;" and he put forward another theory in some detail, which he maintained did account for these facts, and of which he challenged criticism. He concluded his remarks in these words

:

"You will, of course, perceive that my theory accords perfectly with the account given by Moses. I do not, however, press it upon you in consequence of that accordance, but because I contend that every modern discovery may be accounted for by this theory, and cannot be accounted for by the theory of Dr. Buckland." *

[ocr errors]

Professor Sedgwick, who was President of the Geological Section that year, replied to Dr. Cockburn, but as he "confined himself almost exclusively to remarks upon the Dean's supposed ignorance," the learned Dean printed his speech, and requested the Professor to answer it in print; observing that "it appeared to him, and to many wiser men, that the theories, of the Geological Society were incompatible with Christianity,' although Professor Sedgwick had said that "these theories, if rightly understood, would confirm the truths of revelation." For, if so, added the Dean, my answer is, "these theories are not rightly understood by me and by thousands of others." That Dean Cockburn formed the truer estimate of the character of the nebular theory, when he described it as conThe Bible Defended against the British Association. Fourth Edition (p. 16).

tradictory to the Mosaic Cosmogony, has since been abundantly proved. Yet many persons at one time professed to agree with Professor Sedgwick, and freely "interpreted" the Scriptures to make out a kind of agreement between them and the then current geological theories. But the thing did not last. After the publication of "The Vestiges of Creation," any such pretence of agreement was really absurd; and Mr. Goodwin's Essay and lastly Dr. Colenso's writings have since cleared this quite

away.

Dean Cockburn asked for a second discussion, as he got no answer from Professor Sedgwick. Sedgwick. Professor Ansted replied, that he was directed by the Committee of the section to say, "that, as there is no precedent for re-opening the discussions of the section, they consider it would not be proper for them to comply with the request." What an answer for an" Association for the Advancement of Science " to give. No precedent, and therefore "not proper!" "No precedent," in 1844, given as a reason by an Association then only in its 14th year! Well might the learned Dean be excused for observing: "Whether this refusal arose from a lofty or an humble opinion of their cause, it left the question of their Christianity where it was.' He also asked that the Geological Society should "put forth ex cathedra a printed statement or their opinions respecting the Creation; " and at last Professor Sedgwick sent him a reply. In it, the Professor however "declined to support the nebulous theory!" He said, "that it was first put forth by astronomers and adopted by the geologists, as a matter of indifference to them whether true or false." Surely nothing could be very much stranger than such an account of the acceptance of any scientific hypothesis whatever. "Adopted by geologists, as a matter of indifference to them whether true or false!" But nevertheless adopted; and, as already said, to this day exhibited as a foundation of "the geology of the earth" in every current text-book of geological · science.

Further correspondence took place between the Professor and the Dean. But the former would not consent that his letters should be published. Of the last of these the learned Dean writes: "I wish you would allow me to publish it. It has no appearance of hasty composition, but is evidently the work of an able writer perfectly conversant with his subject. It would, I doubt not, give complete satisfaction to the members of the Geological Society. But, unfortunately, there are thousands who think with me, that that society have had too much respect for the argumentum ad verecundiam, and have never allowed their own unbiassed judgment to investi

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »