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 few minutes in an inquiry as to the real inherent value of fossils themselves.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.1

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.” And 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 Cesar 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 fosills 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.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.2

These extracts show a considerable degree of uncertainty about fossil sciences, 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 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 precursory bands ‘Calonies,’ and defined the phenomena as consisting in the partial co-existence 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.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.3

I think that I cannot close this sketch of fossil evidence any better than by giving a part of Professor Geikie’s closing words on this subject:ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.4

“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 they cannot be sure of this till they have explored the whole earth.] 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 single 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. [And that is just what Barrande’s “doctrine of Calonies” does, and his facts show that there are even more than “a few such cases,” and that explains the “opposition” referred to,—they did not want their theory “demolished.”] Hence all such statements ought at first to be made tentatively. 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.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.5

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?ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.6

After showing so forcibly as he has, the utter unreliability of fossil evidence in the succession of strata, he proceeds to the discussion of the succession of strata, and shows that it is by such evidence that that is fixed. Of the Upper Silurian group he says:—ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.7

“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.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.8

Again, under the “Cambrian,” he says:—ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.9

“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.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.10

Of the Old Red Sandstone, he says:—ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.11

“It is important to observe that in no district can these three 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 he says, “This view has been accepted everywhere by geologists.” Until recently, Professor Geikie alone has called in question “the existence of any middle division.”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 529.12

The Old Red Sandstone, otherwise called Devonian, is an established group in geology, and has been accepted everywhere by geologists, and consequently forms an important, integral part of the whole system of geology, 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 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.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.1

This, as well as each of the other divisions of this subjects which I have sketched, might be easily extended to twice its present length, but as I did not intend in the beginning to write a treatise, but simply a sketch, I do not wish to extend it to an immoderate length. 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 lacun 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.”—See closing portion of Gaps in the Geological Record, in Part V.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.2

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.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.3

But again: Geology is not susceptible of demonstration. Astronomy is. Therefore there is no speculation upon the course of the planets and stars, and the times of their revolution. When in 1845 and 1846 Adams in England, and Leverier 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 when 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.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.4

We have said that geology is not susceptible of demonstration, and for proof of this, quote Hebrews 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 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—ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.5

“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 withersoever he goeth,” then, we hope to fully know the awful sublimity of the Almighty Fiat.ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.6

As for the present state of geological science, the only certain thing about it, is its uncertainty. And therefore it is the fitting foundation of Evolution. Darwin says: “The high antiquity of man, ... is the indispensable basis for understanding his origin.”—Descent of Man, Vol. 1, page 3. Appleton’s edition of 1871. thus the two go hand in hand to destroy faith in the word of God, and well may Christ exclaim, “When the Son of man cometh, SHALL HE FIND FAITH ON THE EARTH?”ARSH August 21, 1883, page 530.7

August 14, 1883

August 28, 1883