GEOLOGY
804
GEOLOGY
are found in the diluvium formed b}' the last great geological revolution. If tliese implements are ofar- titicial origin, they afford strong evidence that the races of men by whom tliey were manufactured were the contemporaries of animals which geologists affirm could not have existed witliin the Scripture term of human life. Nevertheless, many of those best ac- quainted with geological i)henomena and the knowl- edge to be derived fiom tlicm have not admitted that this association of a mixture of the flint implements "vvith the extinct animal remains is conclusive evidence of the co-existence in life of the manufacturer of the implements with those animals, and affirm that mere juxtaposition is no evidence of contemporaneity, when no remains of the human frame are to be found in the same place" (Kitto, Ci/clnpcediti, s. v. Creation). The few instances in which such remains have been found together are all resolvable into cases of animals of comparatively recent extinction (^Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1867, p. 457 sq.). The age of the diluvium also in which these remains have been discovered, uncer- tain as it was before, has not been determined bj' the presence of these human relics in it, so that the Scrip- ture chronology of the human ffira has not been dis- placed.
IV. Proposed Identijicalion of these Geological Ptriods with the Mosaic ^' Ikv/s.'''- — Most geologists have frank- \y avowed the utter incompatibility of these rock}' rev- elations with that of Genesis, if intended as the records of the same events ; while those who have believed them to be reconcilable have usuallj' contented them- selves with vaguel}' referring to the progress and or- der evinced in both accounts as a proof of their gener- al agreement, without attempting anything like a mi- nute comparison — doubtless for the reason that any distribution of the geological a3ras into precise por- tions, such as those of Moses, whether six or any oth- er number, must be highly arbitrary and fanciful. A few, however, following out the suggestion of Jame- son, have of late ventured upon such a collation in detail, e. g. Hugh Miller and Dr. M'Causland (see above).
1. The most ingenious of these schemes makes the Jirsi Mosaic " day" correspond to the age of the lower, metamorphic, or Cambrian rocks, in which the eyeless Eoophytic life is compared with tlie vivifying influence of the Spirit brooding over tiie abyss as yet in dark- ness; the second "da}'," on which the firmament was formed, would answer to the Silurian series, contain- ing only sulmiarine invortebra, evincing the presence of liglit; the tM7-d"day," when the dry land brought forth the vegetable tribes, would lie represented by tlie Old Red Sandstone period, containing also vertebrated fish and traces of land vegetation ; tlie fourth " day," ■which witnessed the development of the celestial lu- minaries, would agree witli the Carboniferous a?ra, •which indicates the lifting up of the veil of vapor that had before enshrouded tlie globe, thus giving rise to a more solid form of woody filire ; thcffth " day," when birds and reptiles were produced, would be denoted liy the group of the Permian, New Red Sandstone, Trias, and Oolite systems, with their gigantic Saurians and bird-tracks; and finally, the sirth "day," which saw the creation of land animals, would fall in the Creta- ceous or rather the Tertiary epoch, which jiresents the most perfect fossil mammais. Unfortunately, howev- er, there exist several important discrepancies in this effort at identification, which go to show that it is alto- Ijftther artificial and untrue. Tn the first place, there are not exactly six of these strata of rocks, but some ten or a dozen ; indeed, geologists are not agreed among themselves as to their proper numlier and classifica- tion, some making tiiem out to lie a score or more. Each of these is well defined in itself, and most of them contain their own peculiar 4bssil forms;, yet even they are evidently in general but progressive developments of the same organic types, and not totally fresh orders
of being, such as the successive stages of the Mosaic creation exhibit. Nor are they uniformly distributed over the earth's surface, but some here and others there, although preserving almost invariably the same relative order; so that it is doubtful whether in all cases tliey mark regularly consecutive a'ras in the earth's histoiy as a whole. Neither are the}' equal in extent or thickness, so as to lead us to conclude that they occupied fixed portions of time, such as tlie Mo- saic days of co-ordinate length. Jn the second jilace, they do not tally in tlieir productions with the Mosaic series. The account in Genesis does not introduce life at all until the third day, whereas we find the very lowest stratified rocks teeming Avith certain kinds of animation. Nor is this the vegctaljle life, wliicli first appears in the record of IMoses ; on the contrary, it is such as belongs to the animal kingdom, and is precise- ly of tlie marine order, which Moses withholds till the fiftli day ; while geology does not discover vegetation (luiless inforentially) till the junction of the Silurian with the Old Red Sandstone, and it does not become characteristic till we reach the Carboniferous £era. In like manner, IMoses makes the creation of birds simul- taneous with that of fishes, whereas fish ap]iear in the strata of the period prior to that of the bird-tracks — in- deed, anterior to plants themselves. Moreover, rep- tiles, which figure so conspicuously in the geological annals, are passed over with little, if any distinction in the Mosaic statement. Terrestrial animation, on the other hand, to which Moses does not allude till the sixth day, begins in the geological series as early as the Carboniferous age. In a word, the animal and vegetable kingdoms, which the sacred narrative places at a decided interval, go on in parallel progression through the rocky cycles ; and their relative order of appearance is, if anything, rather the reverse of that given by Moses, while as little coincidence appears in the order of land and water products. Jn the third place, not only is this theory opposed to the obviously literal meaning of the word "day" in the Mosaic rec- ord, and hampered by exegetical difficulties at ever}' point in its details (such as the application of the Spir- it's formative '• hovering," ver. 2, upon the dark chaos, to the evolution of zoophytes ; the segregation of the "firmament," to the deposition of the Silurian rocks; the emergence of " dry land," to the fossil casts of the Old Red Sandstone; the bursting forth of the heaven- ly "lights," to the i)roduction of the coal-measures; the formation of marine "creatures and fowl," to a motley stratification that chances to contain huge liz- ards and nondescript rocs; and the creation of anima- ted nature, to the piling up of chalky or earthy sedi- ment as a basis for alluvial soil) — aside from these for- midable difficulties, the whole interpretation of jMoses's simple language as adumbrating the vast and compli- cated systems of geological changes is preposterous in the highest degree. AVe conclude, therefore, that a hypotiiesis, which, while it outrages evtry just and natural principle of hermeneutics, at the same time so utterly breaks down the moment it is actually brought to the test of scientific comparison, is wholly unworthy our acceptance. Moses is clearly relating a historic creation of the present races of animal and vegetable life, and the analogies between the events and pro- gression of his days and those of the geological cycles are nierel}' such resemblances as the successive resto- rations from a chaotic state would naturally present, although on a vastly different scale in point of dura- tion.