Uncertainty of Geological Science.
By A. T. Jones
IN closing these proofs of the untrustworthiness of fossil evidence, we can do no better than to present the words of Dr. Geikie himself, in Part V., under "Use of Fossils." He says:— "As fossil evidence furnishes a much more satisfactory and widely applicable means of subdividing the stratified rocks of the earth's crust than mere lithological characters, it is made the basis of the geological classification of these rocks. Thus we may find a particular stratum marked by the occurrence in it of various fossils, one or more of which may be distinctive, either from occurring in no other bed above or below, or from special abundance in that stratum. These species might therefore be used as a guide to the occurrence of the bed in question, which might be called by the name of the most abundant species. . . . But before such a generalization can be safely made, we must be sure that the species in question really never does appear on any other platform." But by Barrande's "facts" in regard to Colonies we never can be sure that a certain species "really never does appear on any other platform," until the whole earth has been explored outside and inside, from center to circumference. This is even admitted in the argument which we read further. "This evidently demands wide experience over an extended field of observation. The assertion that a particular species occurs only on one horizon manifestly rests on negative evidence as much as on positive. The paleontologist who makes it cannot mean more than that he knows the fossil to lie on that horizon, and that, so far as his experience and that of others goes, it has never been met with anywhere else. But a simple example of the occurrence of the fossil on a different zone would greatly damage the value of his generalization, and a few such cases would demolish it altogether." Now, as we have seen that the undisputed facts, as developed in Barrande's "doctrine of Colonies," show that just "such cases" "have again and again taken place," therefore it is proven that whatever generalizations have been built up on the evidence of distinctive species of fossils, are, by these facts, "demolished altogether." So it is said:— "Hence all such statements ought at first to be made tentatively [experimentally]. To establish a geological horizon on limited fossil evidence, and then to assume the identity of all strata containing the same fossils, is to reason in a circle and introduce utter confusion into our interpretation of the geological record." If, now, it be true, as the Professor states in his introduction to the subject of fossil science, that without some knowledge of this, "progress in modern geology would be impossible," according to the real knowledge of fossil evidence displayed in these quotations, how much of the progress of modern geology is reliable? After showing so forcibly as he has, the utter unreliability of fossil evidence in giving the succession of strata, he proceeds to the discussion of that very subject—the succession of strata—and shows that it is by such evidence that that is fixed. Of the Upper Silurian group he says:— "The formations which in the British Islands are classed as Upper Silurian, occur in two very distinct types. So great, indeed, is the contrast between these types that it is only by a comparison of organic remains that the whole can be grouped together as the deposits of one great geological period." Again, under the "Cambrian," he says:— "Murchison worked out the stratigraphical order of succession from above, and chiefly by the help of organic remains. He advanced from where the superposition of the rocks is clear and undoubted, and for the first time in the history of geology ascertained that the transition-rocks of the older geologists could be arranged into zones by means of characteristic fossils [the very thing which he has just shown is unreliable] as satisfactorily as the secondary formations had been classified in a similar manner by William Smith. Year by year as he found his Silurian types of life [fossils] descend farther and farther into lower deposits, he pushed backward the limits of his Silurian system." The limits of the Silurian system, therefore, are fixed by the evidence of fossils, and by that alone. This too in the face of the statement that until the order of succession of the strata is accurately determined, fossil classification may prove to be "worthless." Of the Old Red Sandstone, he says:— "It is important to observe that in no district can these three [lower, middle, and upper] subdivisions be found together, and that the so-called middle formation occurs only in one region—the north of Scotland. The classification, therefore, does not rest upon any actually ascertained stratigraphical sequence, but on an inference from the organic remains" [fossils]. And: "This view has been accepted everywhere by geologists." Until recently, Professor Geikie alone has called in question, "the existence of any middle division." The Old Red Sandstone, otherwise called Devonian, is an established group in geology, and has been accepted everywhere by geologists, consequently it forms an important, integral part of the whole geological system, and yet it confessedly rests only upon an "inference" from fossils, while the Professor has previously abundantly shown that no reliable, "positive" inference can be drawn from fossils, and that the order in time of fossils themselves must be established "first of all" by the order in position of the stratified rocks. This, as well as each of the other divisions of this subject, might be easily carried much beyond its present length; but we do not wish to extend it immoderately. However, this is sufficient to demonstrate from the ablest geological treatise itself, that in no single instance does the science proceed upon any certain data. And even this is plainly stated by Professor Geikie:— "From all these facts it is clear that the geological record, as it now exists, is at the best but an imperfect chronicle of geological history. In no country is it complete. The lacunæ of one region must be supplied from another. Yet in proportion to the geographical distance between the localities where the gaps occur and those whence the missing intervals are supplied, the element of uncertainty in our reading of the record is increased." If, then, there be a distance of a foot between the place where a gap occurs and the place where the missing link is found, there is uncertainty to just that extent. And if the distance be a hundred feet, or a thousand feet, or a thousand miles, or ten thousand miles, the "element of uncertainty" is proportionally "increased." Therefore, if a "gap" be found in Kansas, and the "missing interval" be found in Siam, this being the utmost "geographical distance" that could possibly occur, the "element of uncertainty" would be infinite. The one essential element that is lacking in all these productions on geology is demonstration. Assumption upon assumption, and inference upon inference, are proposed upon confessedly uncertain data, and from that, then speculation, to an unlimited degree, is indulged in, and all this is offered to us in the name of science! But we would respectfully enter a demurrer, and ask: Geological gentlemen, give us demonstration, instead of speculation, and then every point so established we will gladly accept. But again: Geology is not susceptible of demonstration. Astronomy is. Therefore there is no speculation upon the courses of the planets and stars, and the times of their revolution. When in 1845 and 1846 Adams in England, and Leverrier in France, virtually weighed the solar system, and found that another planet was required to give the true balance, and then each in his place made his calculations upon paper, as to where the then unknown planet should be, and each from his place wrote to an astronomer telling him to direct his telescope to a certain point in the heavens, and find the required planet, and he did so, and found it, that was science. When, from the fall of an apple, Newton reached the law that "governs every particle of matter in the universe, that was science. Let geology give us some such instances as these, and we will believe all that is proved by them." We have said that geology is not susceptible of demonstration, and for proof of this, quote Heb. 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear;" also verse 1, Faith is "the evidence of things not seen." If the formation, the growth, and the structure of the earth, can be shown by geology, if it can be demonstrated, so that it may be a matter of knowledge, just then it will be removed from the field of faith. As faith is the evidence of things not seen, just so soon as geologists can cause us to see how the worlds were framed, just that soon there is no longer any faith about it. But the God of the universe has placed "the framing of the worlds by his word" at the very head of the list of the objects of faith, and we doubt, exceedingly, whether it shall ever be removed from that chief place, before the dawn of that glorious day when faith itself shall be utterly lost in sight. But— "When that illustrious day shall rise,"
And we shall dwell amidst and above those worlds of light, and shall see the face of Him who sits upon the throne, and "know even as we are known," and "follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth," then, we hope to fully know the awful sublimity of the Almighty Fiat. Of the evidences of the uncertainty of geological science as deduced in this series of articles, we now, in conclusion, present the following 1. (a) "Only in proportion as we understand the present, can we expect to decipher the past."
(b) But "we must be on our guard against the danger of assuming that nature's operations" at present are the same as in the past.
(c) "We may assume this."
(d) But "this assumption may be entirely erroneous."
2. (a) The Geological Record "is at the best but an imperfect chronicle."
(b) "Enormous gaps occur" wherein there is "no record at all."
(c) In that which is considered as "the sum of geological evidence there can be found no trace of a beginning."
(d) Therefore "it cannot begin at the beginning of things."
3. (a) "The stratified portion of the crust of the earth, must represent a very vast period of time."
(b) But "no reliable standard seems to be available, whereby these periods are to be measured."
4. (a) Geological Science "contends that had the globe become solid ten thousand million years ago" it "must have" had a much greater flattening at the poles than it now has.
(b) But it "admits" that had the globe become solid then, "nothing we know" would justify us in saying but what it would have been now just as it is.3415. (a) 'The underlying beds must be older than those which cover them.'
(b) But 'huge mountain masses have been so completely overturned that the highest beds' are under those which ought to be under them.
(c) And 'in such instances the apparent superposition may be deceptive.'
Exactly, it 'must be' one way, and it 'may be' another, and so
(d) 'This simple and obvious truth is termed the law of superposition.'
Oh! ah! yes, very (?) 'simple,' exceedingly (?) 'obvious,' sublime (?) 'truth.'
6. (a) 'The true order of superposition is decisive of the relative ages of stratified rocks.' 'It is absolutely essential first of all to have the order of superposition of strata rigorously determined.'
(b) 'Unless this is done, the most fatal mistakes may be made in paleontological [fossil] chronology.'
(c) But 'it is by their characteristic fossils that the divisions of the stratified rocks can be most satisfactorily made.'
(d) Yet, 'the chronological sequence [succession] of fossils must be determined first of all by the order of superposition [succession] of their enclosing strata.'
7. (a) Until the true order of succession of the rocks is accurately determined, the evidence of fossils is worthless.
(b) But it is 'by fossil evidence and by this alone' that the true order of succession of the rocks is determined.
Such is geological science as it is. Here we close our examination of it for the present. We have endeavored in every instance to get at the real gist of the statements of the science, and to do it fairly. We are satisfied that we have not pressed a single point beyond what it will legitimately bear. Therefore the proposition stands proven to a demonstration that, as for the present state of geological science, the only certain thing about it is its UNCERTAINTY.
A. T. J.