Illogical Geology, the Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory

by George McCready Price

By this proposition I simply mean that Man must have witnessed a cosmic geological catastrophe of some character and of some dimensions—the true nature and probable limits of this catastrophe ought to be the chief point of all geological inquiry. But instead of this method, instead of finding out whether our present world was ever a witness of such an event, the founders of the science began at the little end of an assumed succession of life (involving a preposterous supernatural knowledge of the past), and gradually worked up a habit of explaining everything in terms of Uniformity long decades before they would acknowledge that Man or the present order of things had anything to do with this fossil world. The evidence on this latter point finally became overwhelming; but with their habit of Uniformity well mastered, and their long, single file of life succession all tabulated off and infallibly fixed, modern geologists have hitherto refused to look at the whole science from this new point of view, or to reconstruct geological theory if need be in accordance with a true modern induction.

And in this proposition the reader will understand that I believe in what is called "Tertiary man." I am aware that a few scientists still contest this view, but the evidence (from the standpoint of current theory) seems to me to be overwhelmingly against them. But in this fact, if it be a fact, that Man lived under the wholly strange and different conditions of "Pliocene" or perhaps "Miocene times," is THE VERY STRONGEST POSSIBLE ARGUMENT that I can conceive of for the necessity of a complete reconstruction of geological theory—I mean, of course, apart altogether from the preposterous way in which the life succession was assumed and built up and then treated as an actual fact. It was when this grim fact of Man's inseparable connection with the fossil world was borne in upon me, that I began to realize the possibility and imperative necessity of reconstructing the science on a truly inductive basis.

I shall not undertake to give a complete up-to-date argument for "Miocene" or even "Pliocene Man." The subject is still under discussion as to just how far back along this thin line of receding life forms Man actually did live, and from the peculiar methods now in vogue which are so wholly subjective in character, it would seem to be capable of settlement in almost any way one chooses. However, whole volumes are being written on the subject, and the end is not yet. But there is no denying that human remains have frequently been found in strata which, but for their presence, would have been assigned a place far back in "Tertiary time." The existence of strong evidence for "Tertiary Man" no one would think of denying.

In all this, of course, I am considering the question from the common uniformitarian standpoint. But why should it be necessary for us to positively settle the question as to just how far back in geological time Man actually did live? For those who have attentively read my statement of the unscientific methods of classifying these Tertiary and post-Tertiary beds—or all the others for that matter—I need not here add any further argument if the accepted succession of life is, to put it as mildly as possible, not quite a scientific certainty; if the time-honored custom of classifying these so-called "superficial" beds by their relative percentages of extinct and living forms rests under a shadow of suspicion as to its scientific accuracy; if, above all, we do not at the beginning prejudice the whole case by the assumption of uniformity, what need is there of determining whether "Pliocene" or "Miocene" shells are found with these fossil human remains?

That Man lived in Western Europe contemporary with those giants of the prime, the elephant and the musk-ox, the rhinoceros and the reindeer, the lion, the Cape hyena, and the hippopotamus, at which time a very different distribution of land and water prevailed over these parts, with a radically different mantle of climate spread over all, no one will deny for a moment. Such facts are now found in the primary text-books for our children in the public schools.

But since geologists still classify the rocks as they do, and give a time value to percentages of extinct and living species of marine shells, etc., we are in a measure compelled to take the matter where we find it, and enquire how far back in geological time, i.e., among what kinds of fossils, are human remains found?

One of the best popular works on the subject that I know of is "The Meeting-Place of Geology and History," (1894) by Sir J. W. Dawson; though, like all other works of its kind written from the religious standpoint, it endeavors as far as possible to minimize the evidence in support of Man's geological antiquity.

This author thinks that Dr. Mourlan, of Belgium, has "established the strongest case yet on record for the existence of Tertiary Man." (p. 30.) It is that of some worked flints and broken bones of animals "imbedded in sands derived from Eocene and Pliocene beds, and supposed to have been remanie by wind action." Prestwich[88] has brought forward similar facts; and though the evidence in favor of the genuine geological character of these remains seems to me little if any better than that from the auriferous gravels of California, I am willing to take them as reported.

Dawson speaks of the nearly entire human skeleton described by Quatrefages from the Lower Pliocene beds of Castelnedolo, near Brescia, and only answers it with a sarcastic remark about the well developed skull of this ancient man.