The reader will find this matter discussed at length in the author's
"Fundamentals of Geology"; but here it will be necessary only to draw
some very obvious conclusions from the _five facts_ which we have set in
opposition to the theory of Successive Ages.
1. The first and absolutely incontrovertible conclusion is that this
theory of successive ages must be a gross blunder, in its baleful
effects on every branch of modern thought deplorable beyond computation.
But it is now perfectly obvious that the geological distinctions as to
age between the fossils are fantastic and unjustifiable. No one kind of
true fossil can be proved to be older or younger than another
intrinsically and necessarily, and the methods of reasoning by which
this idea has been supported in the past are little else than a
burlesque on modern scientific methods, and are a belated survival from
the methods of the scholastics of the Middle Ages.
Not by any means that all rock deposits are of the same age. The lower
ones in any particular locality are of course "older" than the upper
ones, that is, they were deposited first. _But from this it by no means
follows that the fossils contained in these lower rocks came into being
and lived and died before the fossils in the upper ones_. The latter
conclusion involves several additional assumptions which are wholly
unscientific in spirit and incredible as matters of fact, one of which
assumptions is the _biological form of the onion-coat theory_. But since
thousands of modern living kinds of plants and animals are found in the
fossil state, _man included_, and no one of them can be proved to have
lived for a period of time alone and before others, we must by other
methods, more scientific and accurate than the slipshod methods hitherto
in vogue, attempt to decide as best we can how these various forms of
life were buried, and how the past and the present are connected
together. But the theory of definite successive ages, with the forms of
life appearing on earth in a precise and invariable order, is dead for
all coming time for every man who has had a chance to examine the
evidence and has enough training in logic and scientific methods to know
when a thing is really proved.
And how utterly absurd for the friends of the Bible to spend their time
bandying arguments with the evolutionist over such minor details as the
question of just what geological "age" should be assigned for the first
appearance of man on the earth, when the evolutionist's major premise is
itself directly antagonistic to the most fundamental facts regarding the
first chapters of the Bible, and above all, when this major premise is
really the weakest spot in the whole theory, the one sore spot that
evolutionists never want to have touched at all.
I fancy I hear some one object, and ask what we are to do with the
systematic arrangement of the fossils, the so-called "geological
succession," that monument to the painstaking labors of thousands of
scientists all over the world. This geological series is still on our
hands; what are we to do with it?
It is scarcely necessary for me to say that this arrangement of the
fossils is not at all affected by my criticism of the cause of the
geological changes. _The geological series is merely an old-time
taxonomic series, a classification of the forms of life that used_ _to
live on the earth_, and is of course just as artificial as any similar
arrangement of the modern forms of life would be.
We may illustrate the matter by comparing this series with a card index.
The earlier students of geology arranged the outline of the order of the
fossils by a rather general comparison with the series of modern life
forms, which happened to agree fairly well with the order in which they
had found the fossils occurring in England and France. But only a block
out of the middle of the complete card index could be made up from the
rocks of England and France; the rest has had to be made up from the
rocks found elsewhere. Louis Agassiz did herculean work in rearranging
and trimming this fossil card index so as to make it conform better, not
only to the companion card index of the modern forms of life, but also
to that of the embryonic series. From time to time even now
readjustments are made in the details of all three indexes, the fossil,
the modern, and the embryonic, the method of rearrangement being
charmingly simple: _just taking a card out of one place and putting it
into another place_ where we may think it more properly belongs. And
then if we can convince our fellow scientists over the world that our
rearrangement is justified, our adjustment will stand,--until some one
else arises to do a better job. When a new set of rocks is found in any
part of the world it is simplicity itself for any one acquainted with
the fossil index system to assign these new beds to their proper place,
though of course the one doing this must be prepared to defend his
assignment with pertinent and sufficient taxonomic reasons.
In view of these facts, we need not be concerned as to the fate of the
geological classification of the fossils. It is a purely artificial
system, just as is the modern classification; but both are useful, and
so far as they represent true relationships they will both stand
unaffected by any change we may make in our opinions as to how the
fossils were buried. But in view of this purely artificial character of
the geological series, what a strange sight is presented by the usual
methods employed to "prove" the exact order in which evolution has taken
place, such for instance as the use made of the graded series of fossil
"horses," to illustrate some particular theory of _just how_ organic
development has occurred. One might just as well arrange the modern dogs
from the little spaniel to the St. Bernard, for the geological series is
just as artificial as would be this of the dogs.
2. Another conclusion from the facts enumerated above is that there has
obviously been a great world catastrophe, and that this must be assigned
as the cause of a large part,--_just how large a part_ it is at present
difficult to say,--of the changes recorded in the fossiliferous rocks.
This sounds very much like a modern confirmation of the ancient record
of a universal Deluge; and I say confidently that no one who will
candidly examine the evidence now available on this point can fail to
be impressed with the force of the argument for a world catastrophe as
the general conclusion to be drawn from the fossiliferous rocks all over
the globe.
3. Finally, there is the further conclusion, the only conclusion now
possible, if there is no definite order in which the fossils occur,
namely, that life in all its varied forms _must have originated on the
globe by causes not now operative_, and this Creation of all the types
of life may just as reasonably have taken place all at once, as in some
order prolonged over a long period.
As I have pointed out in my "Fundamentals," a strict scientific method
may destroy the theory of Successive Ages, and it may show that there
has been a great world catastrophe. But here the work of strict
inductive science ends. It cannot show just how or when life or the
various kinds of life did originate, it can only show _how it did not_.
It destroys forever the fantastic scheme of a definite and precise order
in which the various types of life occurred on the globe, and thus it
_leaves the way open_ to say that life must have originated by just such
a literal Creation as is recorded in the first chapters of the Bible.
But this is as far as it can be expected to go. It is strong evidence in
favor of a direct and literal Creation; but it furnishes this evidence
by indirection, that is, by demolishing the only alternative or rival of
Creation that can command a moment's attention from a rational mind.
_But if life is not now being created from the not-living, if new kinds
of life are not now appearing by natural process, if above all we cannot
prove in any way worthy of being called scientific that certain types of
life lived before others, if in fine man himself is found fossil and no
one fossil can be proved older than another or than that of man himself,
why is not a literal Creation demonstrated as a scientific certainty for
every mind capable of appreciating the force of logical reasoning?_