EVOLUTION AND GEOLOGY by George McCready Price

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, Cal. · Nov 29, 1905

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 31, No. 48.

EVOLUTION AND GEOLOGY

By George McCready Price

HISTORICAL SKETCH.

(Concluded.)

James Hutton.

THE battle was now fairly on between the Catastrophists and the Uniformitarians. Let the reader clearly understand the situation. The geologists had all arrived at the conviction that the various kinds of fossils represented succession in time from the low to the high, that certain types in England corresponded in age to similar fossils on the continent and elsewhere, and were positively different in age from very diverse fossils, just as the older geologists had their periods of limestone-making and sandstone-making, and wrapped the earth in “onion coats” of these deposits. “How glorious,” wrote the great Cuvier in his famous “Preliminary Discourse,” “it would be if we could arrange the organized products of the universe in their chronological order, as we can already do with the more important mineral substances!” But just how these successive faunas came into existence, or how their remains were deposited in their present positions, was an altogether separate and subsequent inquiry.

The Result of the Investigation.

“The world by wisdom knew not God.” But having abandoned the truth of God, and gone off after an ignis fatuus of their own invention, it was now necessary for the good of the world that a complete investigation should be made in line with this anti-Biblical theory and in opposition to God’s record of creation, in order to complete the demonstration of the truth of that Word, and to direct the attention of the last generation of men to the Creator, and to the Sabbath, the sign of His creative power. The latter part of this inquiry, viz., the manner in which the geological changes of the past had occurred, was even then being definitely settled (?) by James Hutton, also “from the subjective standpoint,” for Zittel acknowledges that he “had no great array of facts” before him, a deficiency which made his theories “necessarily inadequate for purposes of generalization.”—“History,” *page 48.

Scientists Undermining Science.

James Hutton (1726–97) was a contemporary of Werner, and originated the theory in opposition to Werner’s which is known as the Plutonic Theory. It was first formulated in 1785, read as a paper before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published ten years later in two volumes. Zittel has occasion to apologize for some mistakes about the origin of minerals and rocks, due to “the undeveloped state of physics and chemistry” at the time, tho Hutton himself certainly understood all the chemistry there was then a-going. His theory, too, of “the uprising of continents, owing to the expansive force of the subterranean heat,” reads strangely indeed in the modern light of what Hopkins, Lord Kelvin, and the other physicists have proved about the earth’s rigidity. Neither had Hutton any clear conception of the significance of fossils as affording evidence of a gradual evolution in creation. Yet in spite of these disadvantages, Hutton’s “Theory of the Earth” is one of the masterpieces in the history of geology. Many of his ideas have been adopted and extended by later geologists, more particularly by Charles Lyell, and form the very groundwork of modern geology.—“History,” *page 72.

Scientists Again at Variance.

Hutton as his chief point dwelt on the present slow action of the elements, the air and water, in wearing away the land surfaces and carrying them down to the sea, where they slowly accumulate in the form of gravel, sand, and mud, and thus form new rock-strata. And he argued that the rocks of the past were formed in precisely the same way as they are now, by the slow, ordinary action of the elements. And here is his conclusion as stated by an enthusiastic admirer: Hutton impresses upon his readers the vastness of the geological æons necessary for the completion of any such cycle of destruction and construction. In proof of this, he calls attention to the comparative insignificance of any changes that have taken place in the surface conformation of the globe within historic time.”—“History,” *page 71.

It will surely be evident to my readers that the reasoning employed in this last sentence is the exact reverse of the true method. Hutton is here dealing altogether with erosion and deposition. We may freely admit that, if time were to last long enough, the whole surface of the continents would be wasted away to the sea-level, and the watery element again reign over all. But where are the new continents to come from? This is not the place to discuss the matter in detail, but the greatest living geologist in the world, Professor Suess of Vienna, claims that no one has ever satisfactorily shown that any tract of dry land whatever is now being formed by elevation from the sea bottom—save a few insignificant areas due to volcanic action.

The True Cause of the Transformation.

The present continents are being all worn away, tho very slowly, but there is absolutely no evidence that sea bottoms are now being raised up so as to form new land surfaces. Hence I say that the very “comparative insignificance” of any such change “within historic time” becomes one of the strongest of proofs that the present conditions of “our quiet earth” have not always prevailed. And this conclusion is emphasized a thousand fold when we see that since man was on the earth land and water have changed places over nearly all the earth, and nearly all the great mountain ranges have been formed. Hence, as no approach to anything of this kind has taken place during the last few hundred years, the conclusion is inevitable that at some time in the past the accustomed quiet of the elements must have been disturbed, and all this geological work must have been done in a comparatively short space of time. The Bible speaks of this period of elemental disturbance as the Flood. But to proceed with our quotation:— When we compare Hutton’s theory of the earth’s structure with that of Werner and other contemporary or older writers, the great feature which distinguishes it and marks its superiority is the strict inductive method applied throughout. Every conclusion is based upon observed data that are carefully enumerated, no supernatural or unknown forces are resorted to, and the events and changes of past epochs are explained from analogy with the phenomena of the present age.—“History,” *page 71.

Not the Inductive Method of Reasoning.

We must now consider whether this high praise is really due Hutton, and whether he is following a “strict inductive method.” It must be noted at the outset that he did not take the trouble to start from the present living species of plants and animals or man himself, and, after inquiring how their remains occur in the earth, endeavor to find out what cause placed them there. We do not even read that he first explained the superficial deposits so thickly scattered over the surface of his own country of Scotland—deposits being left by the science till all else had been definitely arranged according to theory, have given his modern disciples a “glacial nightmare” for nearly half a century. Either of these methods, or a combination of the two, would be applying the “strict inductive method” to at least the beginning of his science, and might inspire an interested public with confidence in the sound methods of this research when extended backward in time. But Hutton did not reason in this way. Not at all. He dwelt principally on the wearing down of the present land surface, and the deposit of these materials in strata by water; and of course this method, so far as it goes, is sound enough, and we may even give it the credit for what we now know about the possibilities of earth, air, and water.

As already remarked, these forces are sufficient to produce any amount of denudation and deposition as to quantity, if time enough be granted; the question as to the kind of results, i. e., whether the forces now at work are laying down modern analogies to the crowded graveyards which we find in all the formations, does not seem to have occurred to him. In short, like all other theorizers “from the subjective standpoint,” he sought to show how all these deposits may have occurred, not how they positively must have occurred. Sublime in his disregard of nature’s possible disclosures, he seems never to have dreamed that we might in the rocks themselves find fossils of living species of animals, or man himself, under such tell-tale circumstances as make all theories of uniformity seem utterly childish. If a coroner, called upon to hold a post mortem, were to content himself, as Hutton did, with glittering generalities about how people are all the time dying of old age, fever, or other causes, coupled with assurances of the quiet, regular habits and good reputation of all his fellow citizens, I do not think that Professor Zittel or any other sensible man would praise him for following a “strict inductive method” if we could get at clear and decisive evidence that the poor fellow had been shot. Just so with common-sense methods in geology. A true induction is capable of finding out for certain whether the present regular action of the elements has always prevailed; and it is most unscientific to assume, as the followers of Hutton have done for a hundred years, that the “comparative insignificance of any changes” noticed “within historic time” has always been maintained, when there is clear and decisive evidence to the contrary.