Uncertainty of Geological Science.
By A. T. Jones
To show that we have not pressed any of these statements into service to make a point, we wish to continue this line a little further. Under Part IV., "Relative Lapse of Time Represented by Strata and by the Intervals Between Them," we read:— "As a rule, we should infer that the time represented by a given thickness of similar strata was less than that shown by the same thickness of dissimilar strata, because the changes needed to bring new varieties of sediment into the area of deposit would usually require the lapse of some time for their completion. But this conclusion might often be erroneous." "But in all speculations of this kind we must bear in mind that the length of time represented by a given depth of strata is not to be estimated merely from their thickness or lithological characters. . . . But the relative chronological importance of the bars or lines in the geological record can seldom be satisfactorily discussed merely on lithological grounds; this must mainly be decided on the evidence of organic remains [fossils]. By this kind of evidence it can be made nearly certain that the intervals represented by strata were in many cases much shorter than those not so represented; in other words, that the time during which no deposit of sediment went on was longer than that wherein deposit did take place." "The relative chronological value of the divisions of the geological record is not to be measured by mere depth of strata. Of two sets of rocks, the total depth of both groups together may be, say one thousand feet. Elsewhere, we may find a single unbroken formation reaching a depth of ten thousand feet; but it would be utterly erroneous to conclude that the latter represented ten times the length of time shown by the two former.' 'Fossil evidence furnishes the chief means of comparing the relative value of formations and groups of rock. A break in the succession of organic remains marks an interval of time often unrepresented by strata at the place where the break is found. The relative importance of these breaks, and therefore, probably, the comparative intervals of time which they mark, may be estimated by the difference of the facies of the fossils on each side." Further, Part V., under "Doctrine of Colonies":— "While the mere fact that one series of rocks lies unconformably on another proves the lapse of a considerable interval between their respective dates, the relative length of this interval may sometimes be demonstrated by means of fossil evidence, and by this alone. But fossil evidence may be made to prove the existence of gaps which are not otherwise apparent." "A few species may pass from one into the other, or perhaps every species may be different. In cases of this kind, when proved to be not merely local but persistent over wide areas, we must admit, notwithstanding the apparently undisturbed and continuous character of the original deposition of the strata, that the abrupt transition from one facies of fossils to the other must represent a long interval of time which has not been recorded by the deposit of strata." And so by this line of quotations we are brought again around the geological circle, thus:— "The first and fundamental point is to determine accurately the order of superposition [succession] of the strata. Until this is done, detailed paleontological [fossils] classification may prove to be worthless."—Part V. under Subdivisions by Means of Fossils. "When the order of succession of organic remains [fossils] among the stratified rocks has been determined, they become an invaluable guide in the investigation of the relative age of rocks and the structure of the land. And the true succession [superposition] of strata may thus be confidently established."—Part VI., No. 4. The grand argument is this: (a) Until the true order of succession of the rocks is accurately determined, the evidence of fossils is worthless. (b) Until the true order of succession of the fossils has been determined, the evidence of the rocks is worthless. But (a) it is by "fossil evidence, and by this alone," that the succession of the rocks is determined. (b) It is by the order of succession of the rocks that the true succession of fossils is determined. Upon which we would simply remark that, as the evidence of fossils is worthless without the true order of the rocks; and as the evidence of the rocks is worthless without the true order of the fossils; then the whole system that is built up on such evidence (?) can be nothing less than worthless. Such is Geological Science. And we are certain that it comes within the scope of Paul's words in 1 Tim. 6: 20. As the Science of Fossils "is looked upon as a branch of Geology, seeing that its assistance is absolutely indispensable in many of the most familiar and fundamental problems of the latter science," we might spend a little time in an inquiry as to the real inherent value of fossils themselves. One quotation, already made, may properly be repeated as the head of this division,—Part V., under Age of Fossils:— "There is nothing in the fossils themselves, apart from experience, to fix their date." Again, No. 2, under Use of Fossils:— "Consider, for a moment, what would happen were the present surface of any portion of Central or Southern Europe submerged beneath the sea, covered by marine deposits, and then re-elevated into land. The river-terraces and lacustrine marls formed before the time of Julius Cæsar could not be distinguished by any fossil tests from those laid down in the days of Victoria. . . . So far as regards the shells, bones, and plants preserved in the various formations, it would be absolutely impossible to discriminate their relative dates; . . . yet there might be a difference of two thousand years or more between many of them. They would be classed as geologically contemporaneous, but the phrase is too vague to have any chronological value except in a relative sense. Strict contemporaneity cannot be asserted of any strata merely on the ground of similarity, or identity of fossils." Similarity or identity of fossils among formations geographically far apart, instead of proving contemporaneity, ought rather to be looked upon as indicative of great discrepancies in the relative epochs of deposit. . . . When, however, the formations of distant countries are compared, all that we can safely affirm regarding them is that those containing the same or a representative assemblage of organic remains belong to the same epoch in the history of biological progress in each area; but we cannot assert that they are contemporaneous unless we are prepared to include within that term a vague period of perhaps thousands of years." These extracts show a considerable degree of uncertainty about fossil science, but the uncertainty is made absolute by the following relation of the discoveries of M. Barrande, a distinguished author of a geological treatise. He "drew attention more than a quarter of a century ago to certain remarkable intercalations of fossils in the series of Silurian strata of Bohemia. He showed that, while these strata presented a normal succession of organic remains, there were nevertheless exceptional bands, which, containing the fossils of a higher zone, were yet included on different horizons among inferior portions of the series. He termed these percursory bands, 'Colonies,' and defined the phenomena as consisting in the partial coexistence of two general faunas, which, considered as a whole, were nevertheless successive. . . . This original and ingenious doctrine has met with much opposition on the part of geologists and paleontologists. Of the facts cited by M. Barrande, there has been no question, but other explanations have been suggested for them. . . . Much of the opposition which his views have encountered has probably arisen from the feeling that if they are admitted, they must weaken the value of paleontological evidence in defining geological horizons. A paleontologist, who has been accustomed to deal with certain fossils as unfailing indications of particular portions of the geological series, is naturally unwilling to see his generalizations upset by an attempt to show that the fossils may occur on a far earlier horizon." But: "There seems every probability that such migrations as M. Barrande has supposed in the case of the Silurian fauna of Bohemia have again and again taken place." Here, then, is a doctrine based upon "facts" of which there has been "no question," which have again and again taken place, yet it meets with "much opposition" from geological scientists simply because it weakens the theory which they have adopted, simply because they are unwilling to have their "generalizations upset." A queer kind of "science" that, that holds to "generalizations" in the face of unquestioned "facts" which prove such generalizations to be wholly false. A very questionable kind of science indeed, we think, that clings tenaciously to a theory against the evidence of facts. Nor is this all. It is impossible to lay down lines by which can be marked the distinction of periods of either strata or fossils. Some would-be geologists talk learnedly of "six periods" of geological development, clearly defined according to the period theory of the days of Gen. 1. Hugh Miller was probably the most prominent instance of this, and when he lived it was admitted on the theory of the "generalizations" above mentioned, which, as we have seen, have been "upset." Proof of this we have in the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Hugh Miller:— "When he occupied the chair of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, in 1852 [he died in 1856], he could look the most eminent representatives of contemporary geology in the face, and claim their assent to the possibility of drawing definite lines of demarkation between the Tertiary, Secondary, and Paleozoic strata. He could speak of the 'entire type of organic being' as altering between these periods. 'All on the one side of the gap,' he could dare to affirm, 'belongs to one fashion, and all on the other to another and wholly different fashion.' In the thirty intervening years [to 1882] every form of the cataclysmal [the deluge] scheme of geological progression has been discredited. It has become impossible to obtain anything like a consensus of opinion among scientific men as to the placing of those frontier lines between period and period. 'Geographical provinces and zones,' says Professor Huxley, 'may have been as distinctly marked in the Paleozoic [primary, first] epoch as at present, and those seemingly sudden appearances of new genera and species which we ascribe to new creation, may be simple results of migration.'" All these things simply demonstrate the conclusion before reached as to the utter worthlessness of the deductions of the geological scientists.