OCR Text |
Show 216 EXPLAN ATlONS most undoubtedly under the influence of natural laws which we yet see continually operating. The rema~ns and traces of plants and animals found in the successiOn of strata, show that, while these operations were goi~g on, the earth gradually became the theatre of org~ntc being, si1nple forms appearing first, and more .co~pllcated afterwards. A time when tJ,c:re was no ltfe IS first seen. We then see life begin, and go on; but whole ages elapsed before man came to crown the work of nature. This is a wonderful revelation to have come upon the men of our time, and one which the philosophers of the days of Newton could never have expected to be vouchsafed. The great fact established by 1t is, that the organic r.reation, as we no\\~ see it, was not placed upon the earth at once ;-it observed a PROGRESS. Now we can imagine the Deity calling a young plant or animal into existence instantaneously; but \Ye see that he doe~ not usually do so. The young plant and also the young animal go throu(Th a series of conJitions, advancing the1n from a mere ge~m to the fully developed t·epe~ition. of the respective parental forms. So, als?, w~ can ?:n'!ag'tne Divine power evoking a whole creahon Into being by one word; but we find that such had not been his mode of working in that instance, for geology fully proves that organic creation passed thro~gh a senes of stages before the hi(Thcst ve(Tetable and animal forms appeared. Here we ha~e the first hint of organic creation having arisen in the manner of natural order. The analogy does not prove identity of causes, but it surely points very broadly to natural order or law having been the mode of proce-dure in both instances. But the question is, J?oes geology re~llY. show such a progress of being? This has been den1~d. 1~ some quar· ters, and par~icularly in th~ elaborate ?r' hcism upo~ th: Vestiges, \Vlnch appeared 1n the E~tnburgh. Revzew. In reality, the whole of the geologists adr_rut that we have first the remains of invertebrated antmals ; then with these, fish, being the _lowest of th~ vertebratbd! next, reptiles and birds, which occupy higher g~ades' and, finally, along with the ~·e~t, 1nar':unifers, the highest of all· and yet controversialists w1ll be found gravely telling their readers, H It is not true that only th.e lowest fo1·ms of anitnal life are found in the lowest fossil bands, July, 1845. • LOWER SILURIAN FOSSILS. 21'1 and that the more complicated stru~tures are gradually developed among th~ h1gher band'3, 1n what we m~~ht call a natural ascending scale;"* the pretext for aiv1na this unqualified contradiction to the above grand f~ct be~ tng, .that when we take the special groups of animals, as the Invertebrata, the fishes, the reptiles, &c., there are some real or apparent grounds for denying that the low forms of these groups came before the higher. The fallacy consists in sinking the great broad palpable facts of ~he case, a?~ut whic~ not the least doubt anywhere extsts, and gtVIng prominence to certain facts of far inferior mag~itude, and comparatively obscure, but in ,,~hose obs~ unty there is a possibility of creating a kind of divers~ on. I trust to be. able to s~ow that, even in the speCial groups of fossils, there IS no real obstacle to the theory of a gradual natural development of life upon our planet. The view which the Edinburgh critic gives of the earliest stratified rocks is much the same as my own account of. them. T~ere is a Hypo zoic formation, or series, deVOid of rematns of plants and animals; then a formation (Lower Silurian) called in .my e~rly editions the Clayslate and Grawacke system, In whiCh we find " no animals of the higher classes, with a regular skeleton and a backbone;" only corals, encrinites, crustaceans, and mol~ l usks. " Vegetabl~ .appearances," he says, " do not ap pear among the Bnhsh rocks; but there must have been a rnass of veg.etable life in the ancient sea, as no fauna can appe.ar w1t~out ~ flora ~o uphold it." This last inference Is of. httl_e 1.mmed~ate consequence; but I may remark, that It co1nc1des with one which I ventured to make, pro~pted thereto by som~ of th~ recent papers of Mr. ~urchtson. We here see 1t sanctwned by a writer who Is understood to be a distinguished investigator of the lowest fossiliferous beds. It is from no wish to amuse the reader, but merely as a pleadin(T in behalf of se,~eral of th.e alleged geological misstaterrfents in my book, that I br~ng forward another distinguished reviewer of the Ves.tzges of f?reat~o"!, (North B_ritish Review, No. 6,) taxing me w1th having been dnven to make this very surnuse as an escape from a difficulty ! 1\Iore than this : the N ort~ Bri~is~ Reviewer is at odds with his Edinburgh orother, 1n bnngmg bones and teeth of fish into the first * " Edinburgh Review ' |