the Bible are so unequivocal that it is not possible to explain the words so as to bring them into harmony with the prevailing scientific opinions. It would only be possible to prove that the literal theory of the Hexameron is in harmony with geological conclusions by showing that the views which now prevail among geologists are not certain scientific conclusions, but arbitrary theories; and this proof must, of course, be supported by scientific arguments. Accordingly this method has been adopted by the supporters of this theory; Bosizio in particular has devoted a great part of his book to the refutation of what I have shown in my last lecture to be the prevailing views amongst modern geologists. Any one who thinks that this refutation is valid may therefore believe that the Biblical statements as interpreted by Bosizio, Keil, and others do not indeed harmonize with the prevailing geological theories, but are in accordance with the real results of geological inquiry. But I very much doubt whether many people' will consider Bosizio's explanations to be an " evident proof" that "in our day geognosy has, in a perfectly shameful manner, propounded hypotheses as facts, and fancies as conclusions. I have only seen one review of his book which is written by a man apparently well versed in the subject, and that ends with the declaration that Bosizio has not succeeded in proving that the fundamental theories of modern geologists are entirely erroneous." At any rate there is no reason to expect that, in consequence of the objections raised 1 ' With Hoffner, Der moderne Materialismus, Frankf. 1865, p. 30. by the theologians I have named, geology will "return from its wanderings into the region of untenable geognostical theories"—that is, will give up the fundamental theories which I have developed in my last lecture. The fact that, as we have seen, geologists themselves expect that the progress of research will very much modify our conception of the details of the earth's palæontological history, no more prevents the confirmation of the fundamental principles than the countless differences of opinion on many single points among inquirers prevents their being at one as to the main idea. Under these circumstances I do not think it necessary to inquire in detail whether any of the palæontological theories now prevailing, or how many of them, may be regarded as scientifically certain, after such objections as these. It will be enough if I lay stress on one point, which, as I believe, would alone wreck the whole theory in question. If the fossiliferous strata have all been deposited since the creation of man, we can only allow a few thousand years for their formation. For according to the ordinary and most obvious computation of the chronological statements in the Bible, man was created about 6000 years ago, and the period between the creation of man and the Deluge, in which is included the formation of the greater part of the strata, would be about 2000 years. Is this time-let us say between 2000 and 3000 years 2-sufficient for the formation of the fossiliferous strata? If we are to believe the geologists, it is certainly not sufficient; for remember that in a former lecture I told you what Bosizio gives this period, p. 239. 1 Bosizio, Op. cit. p. 337. you will immense periods they say were required. Now, Bosizio has no doubt collected-partly from my book and partly from other sources-a series of quotations from separate men of science, in which they express themselves very strikingly on the uncertainty and exaggeration of these geological figures. But the conclusion which he draws from these remarks is quite unjustifiable; for he says that as it is admitted that geologists are only able to set up uncertain suppositions as to the time necessary for the formation of such strata, these "merely hypothetical" figures cannot be compared with the chronological figures given us in sacred and profane history, for which we have documentary evidence. Certainly not; but this is begging the question. I do not know how many volumes our University Library contains, or how much they are worth; and if several experts were to look round the rooms once, and were then to estimate the number of volumes and the value of the whole collection, they would probably not agree exactly in their estimates, and they would themselves call their figures uncertain and "merely hypothetical;" but it is none the less indisputable that there are more volumes in the University Library than in my own, and that I could not afford to purchase it. However much geologists may be at variance with one another in their estimation of the period of time in question, and however readily they may admit the uncertainty of their figures, they are, with a few unimportant exceptions, unanimous in asserting that 2000 or 3000 years are not enough; and this they will maintain with the greatest possible determination. "Besides," adds Bosizio, "if we inquire how these geological assumptions of enormously long periods of time first arose in the books of geologists, we find that these exaggerated estimates are greatest, and occur most frequently, in the works of those authors who incline to materialism and pantheism. Geologists whose philosophy is more sound, and who are certainly not less trustworthy, do not speak of millions of years, but of thousands." Let us put aside the charge of materialism and pantheism with which, as with other accusations, Bosizio is always very liberal, and listen only to those authors who in this respect are quite above suspicion, and we shall find that they all, even if they only speak of thousands of years, with one accord deny that 3000 years is sufficient, which is the point in question. I appeal to mention a few onlyto Buckland, A. Wagner, H. Miller, and Marcel de Serres among geologists, to Cardinal Wiseman and Bosizio's fellow - Jesuit Pianciani among theologians. The latter says simply that the literal interpretation of the six days meets with difficulties which rest not on geological theories and systems, but on numerous carefully examined facts, that for this reason the "wiser and more learned theologians and defenders of religion are trying to prove that the long periods of time assumed by geologists are not at variance with the Mosaic narrative.1 As an example of the time required for the formation of a fossiliferous stratum, let us take the coal-beds, which have been referred to by Bosizio and Veith. Bosizio thinks that they were most frequently formed 1 Erläuterungen, etc., p. 7. See above, p. 187, in the same way as the peat mosses; and as at the present time a peat moss fathoms deep can be formed in forty or fifty years, it is fair to assume that, taking into consideration the luxuriant vegetation of the marsh plants from which the coal was formed, probably only the seventh or eighth part of that time was required, that is, from five to seven years, and therefore the time necessary for the formation of the present coal measures need not be of such enormous extent.1 Further, Professor Göppert has made several attempts to produce peat and coal artificially, and he has succeeded in doing this in the space of one year with some kinds of plants, and in two years with others. From this Councillor Haidinger concludes that the enormously long periods of time assumed by geologists were not necessary for the formation of the coal measures.2 As to the intermediate layers of chalk and sandstone, which are sometimes from 100 to 1000 feet thick, and the greywacke strata, which are some 'Bosizio here quotes from Quenstedt, Epochen, etc. p. 401: "For the most part they were plants of loose fibre and gigantic stalks, which blossomed and faded quickly. As now it takes years, so then it took months to load the flat marshy ground with carbonic acid. If, instead of our present rushy beds, we imagine great bamboos ten times as high and thick, or let us say sigillaria woods of the coal period, the time which this vegetation would take in growing need hardly be considered." But Quenstedt himself says a few pages farther on (p. 404): "If it was only a question of one stratum, no doubt peat would be the best analogy. But in almost every coal-field we find a succession of strata, recurring in parallel layers one above the other more than a hundred times in perfect order, and imbedded in intermediate strata many thousand feet thick. . . . A coal-bed 400 feet thick, such as we find at Saarbrück, whether it was composed of peat, wood, or vegetable mould, must have taken mountains of plants at least from five to thirty times as large as it is now to compose it. Look where you will, the activity of the earth in our period will not suffice to explain these things." 2 See above, p. 290. U |