A Specimen of Knowledge.
By Editor
"In the Scientific American of May 17, 1879, appears an article headed, 'A New Estimate of the World's Age.' From this it appears that a Mr. Millard Reade, of Liverpool, has contributed to the Royal Society, a paper in which he claims to have found a new and satisfactory clew to the age of the earth. His argument may be summarily stated thus:— "Limestone has been in process of formation from the earliest period. Mr. Reade 'estimates,' the sedimentary crust of the earth at one mile in average thickness. Of this he says, 'probably one-tenth consists of calcareous [limestone] matter.' Seeking the origin of this calcareous matter, the article continues, 'it is assumed that the primitive rocks of the original crust were the nature of granite or basaltic rocks.' Then the amount of lime salts in water drained from such rocks is found to be 3.73 parts to 100,000 parts of water. We quote again. 'It is further assumed that the exposed area of igneous rocks, taking an average throughout all geological time, will bear to the exposures of sedimentary rocks a ratio of about one to nine.' From these and other data it is then 'concluded' that the elimination of the calcareous matter found in the sedimentary strata 'must have occupied about 600 millions of years.' "In the foregoing quotations, the italics are our own. The reader will see at once the basis of this wonderful conclusion: first an 'estimate,' then a 'probability,' then an 'assumption,' then a fact which is available only if the assumption is correct, then another 'assumption,' then the grand 'conclusion.' And having thus positively proved Moses to be five hundred and ninety-nine millions, nine hundred and ninety-four thousand years from the truth, they are happy! How nice it is to have such clear and positive knowledge about these things!" The above, which we copy from the Review and Herald, shows the manner in which learned men and learned societies palm off their vagaries, and expect the world to give them credit for real wisdom. Their folly would be more endurable were it not for the effrontery with which they claim implicit reliance upon their speculations, and the cool scorn with which they treat the believer in the Bible who questions the force of their statements, and the legitimacy of their conclusions. A paper which rests so much on "estimates" and "assumptions" would be unworthy of notice, were it not that it receives character from being received by the Royal Society. We commend to our readers the article in this paper, Dr. Lord on False Notions of Geology. It will bear a second careful reading. Every one who studies the argument, and becomes interested in the reasoning, will consider its length one of its merits.