Landscape in History, and Other Essays

by Archibald Geikie

And yet, unlike many of those who derived their inspiration from his teaching, but pushed his tenets to extremes which he doubtless never anticipated, he did not look upon time as a kind of scientific fetich, the invocation of which would endow with efficacy even the most trifling phenomena. As if he had foreseen the use that might be made of his doctrine, he uttered this remarkable warning: 'With regard to the effect of time, though the continuance of time may do much in those operations which are extremely slow, where no change, to our observation, had appeared to take place, yet, where it is not in the nature of things to produce the change in question, the unlimited course of time would be no more effectual than the moment by which we measure events in our observations.'[77]

We thus see that in the philosophy of Hutton, out of which so much of modern geology has been developed, the vastness of the antiquity of the globe was deduced from the structure of the terrestrial crust and the slow rate of action of the forces by which the surface of the crust is observed to be modified. But no attempt was made by him to measure that antiquity by any of the chronological standards of human contrivance. He was content to realise for himself and to impress upon others that the history of the earth could not be understood, save by the admission that it occupied prolonged though indeterminate ages in its accomplishment. And assuredly no part of his teaching has been more amply sustained by the subsequent progress of research.

Playfair, from whose admirable Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory most geologists have derived all that they know directly of that theory, went a little further than his friend and master in dealing with the age of the earth. Not restricting himself, as Hutton did, to the testimony of the rocks, which showed neither vestige of a beginning nor prospect of an end, he called in the evidence of the cosmos outside the limits of our planet, and declared that in the firmament also no mark could be discovered of the commencement or termination of the present order, no symptom of infancy or old age, nor any sign by which the future or past duration of the universe might be estimated.[78] He thus advanced beyond the strictly geological basis of reasoning, and committed himself to statements which, like some made also by Hutton, seem to have been suggested by certain deductions of the French mathematicians of his day regarding the stability of the planetary motions. His statements have been disproved by modern physics; distinct evidence, both from the earth and the cosmos, has been brought forward of progress from a beginning which can be conceived, through successive stages to an end which can be foreseen. But the disproof leaves Hutton's doctrine about the vastness of geological time exactly where it was. Surely it was no abuse of language to speak of periods as being vast, which can only be expressed in millions of years.

It is easy to understand how the Uniformitarian school, which sprang from the teaching of Hutton and Playfair, came to believe that the whole of eternity was at the disposal of geologists. In popular estimation, as the ancient science of astronomy was that of infinite distance, so the modern study of geology was the science of infinite time. It must be frankly conceded that geologists, believing themselves unfettered by any limits to their chronology, made ample use of their imagined liberty. Many of them, following the lead of Lyell, to whose writings in other respects modern geology owes so deep a debt of gratitude, became utterly reckless in their demands for time, demands which even the requirements of their own science, if they had adequately realised them, did not warrant. The older geologists had not attempted to express their vast periods in terms of years. The indefiniteness of their language fitly denoted the absence of any ascertainable limits to the successive ages with which they had to deal. And until some evidence should be discovered whereby these limits might be fixed and measured by human standards, no reproach could justly be brought against the geological terminology. It was far more philosophical to be content, in the meanwhile, with indeterminate expressions, than from data of the weakest or most speculative kind to attempt to measure geological periods by a chronology of years or centuries.

In the year 1862 a wholly new light was thrown on the question of the age of our globe and the duration of geological time by the remarkable paper on the Secular Cooling of the Earth communicated by Lord Kelvin (then Sir William Thomson) to the Royal Society of Edinburgh.[79] In this memoir he first developed his now well-known argument from the observed rate of increase of temperature downwards from the surface of the land. He astonished geologists by announcing to them that some definite limits to the age of our planet might be ascertained, and by declaring his belief that this age must be more than 20 millions, but less than 400 millions of years.

Nearly four years later he emphasised his dissent from what he considered to be the current geological opinions of the day by repeating the same argument in a more pointedly antagonistic form in a paper of only a few sentences, entitled, 'The Doctrine of Uniformity in Geology briefly refuted.'[80]

Again, after a further lapse of about two years, when, as President of the Geological Society of Glasgow, it became his duty to give an address, he returned to the same topic and arraigned more boldly and explicitly than ever the geology of the time. He then declared that 'a great reform in geological speculation seems now to have become necessary,' and he went so far as to affirm that 'it is quite certain that a great mistake has been made—that British popular geology at the present time is in direct opposition to the principles of natural philosophy.'[81] In pressing once more the original argument derived from the downward increase of terrestrial temperature, he now reinforced it by two further arguments, the one based on the retardation of the earth's angular velocity by tidal friction, the other on the limitation of the age of the sun.

These three lines of attack remain still those along which the assault from physics is delivered against the strongholds of geology. Lord Kelvin has repeatedly returned to the charge since 1868, his latest contribution to the controversy having been pronounced two years ago.[82] While his physical arguments remain the same, the limits of time which he deduces from them have been successively diminished. The original maximum of 400 millions of years has now been restricted by him to not much more than 20 millions, while Professor Tait grudgingly allows something less than 10 millions.[83]

Soon after the appearance of Lord Kelvin's indictment of modern geology in 1868, the defence of the science was taken up by Huxley, who happened at the time to be President of the Geological Society of London. In his own inimitably brilliant way, half seriously, half playfully, this doughty combatant, with evident relish, tossed the physical arguments to and fro in the eyes of his geological brethren, as a barrister may flourish his brief before a sympathetic jury. He was willing to admit that 'the rapidity of rotation of the earth may be diminishing, that the sun may be waxing dim, or that the earth itself may be cooling.' But he went on to add his suspicion that 'most of us are Gallios, who care for none of these things, being of opinion that, true or fictitious, they have made no practical difference to the earth, during the period of which a record is preserved in stratified deposits.'[84]

For the indifference which their advocate thus professed on their behalf most geologists believed that they had ample justification. The limits within which the physicist would circumscribe the earth's history were so vague yet so vast, that whether the time allowed were 400 millions or 100 millions of years did not seem to them greatly to matter. After all, it was not the time that chiefly interested them, but the grand succession of events which the time had witnessed. That succession had been established on observations so abundant and so precise that it could withstand attack from any quarter, and it had taken as firm and lasting a place among the solid achievements of science as could be claimed for any physical speculations whatsoever. Whether the time required for the transaction of this marvellous earth-history was some millions of years more or some millions of years less did not seem to the geologists to be a question on which their science stood in antagonism with the principles of natural philosophy, but one which the natural philosophers might be left to settle at their own good pleasure.