But some geologists have thought proper to imagine, that they could confirm it by evidence drawn from their own peculiar studies, and particularly from that depart ment of it now under review. On ascertained points, fable or fallacious evidence is superfluous, or worse ; on doubtful ones, or on those which, without being absolutely doubtful, are doubted of by a peculiar class of philoso phers, it is injurious. It is said by Curler, and by others following him, that the recent creation of man is proved by the absence of his remains from the alluvial deposits which contain those of existing quadrupeds. Surely this is very lax reasoning, if it is indeed worthy of the name. Cuvier's own conclusions are drawn from a nar row spot on the globe, where man may not have existed; where, if he did exist, he was not necessarily overwhelm ed by the catastrophe, or imbedded in the materials that have preserved the remains of inferior animals. This, again, is one of those negative proofs, in every way in which it can be examined, which establishes nothing. Unless the remains of every existing animal were found in the alluuial soils, we could not even approach to positive physical evidence respecting the more recent origin of man. The fact would not be established even then, and for these following reasons: If these alluvia are more ancient than that state of the earth which is recorded in the Mosaic creation, we have indeed no reason to expect such remains. But as all alluvia arc not necessarily of such high antiquity, man may yet be found buried in them. It is not improbable, that his remains may so cc:6st in these very countries whence his colonies first detached themselves; or among the alluvia of that early date, whether these have been the produce of ordinary waste by the rivers, of geological inundations, or of the Mosaic deluge. As it is difficult, and indeed often impossible, to discover the antiquity of alluvia, it might, in such an event, be concluded with just the same probability, that the .zera of man's creation was more remote than we believe it from Scriptural evi dence to be; as remote, for example, as that of the quad rupeds and am phibia that are esteemed to be of the highest antiquity ; and thus the system of generalization, mis chievously adopted to confirm that testimony, might be adduced to prove the very reverse by those who were inclined to reply to arguments of this nature.
So dangerous is it to mix fallacious evidence with true, to attempt fondly to support, as has too often been done, the evidences of Scripture that relate to the ancient state and catastrophe of the globe, by physical facts ill ascer tained, viewed through a wrong medium, and improperly applied. This is the admixtio of theology and natural history which Bacon and Burnet both agree in re probating; which has at the same time brought unmerited obloquy on the cultivators of that branch of knowledge,. and, in weak minds, has injured the cause of religion.
On the Supposed Changes of the Climates in which Foss:: Remains were buried.
One of the questions which has much agitated geolo gists in this department of the science, relates to the cli mates tinder which fossil bodies are supposed to have lived. From the analogies between some plants and ani mals now imbedded in stone, with others found in different and distant climates, it has been judged that the original climates of these individuals, when living, were different from those in which their remains are at present buried.
This es idence, it is plain, rests on our power of proving the climate from the organization, whether by direct or an alogical reasoning. The facts themselves will, on examina tion, prove to be as scanty as the reasoning is unsatisfac tory. We shall content ourselves with a few of the most decisive, that we may give this speculation every advan tage. But it is necessary to anticipate here what will be proved in a following part of this chapter, namely, that where these beings died, there they now remain. Had they been transported from distant places, it would have been useless to examine this question.
It has been remarked, for example, that the various tribes of corals are, in their living state, almost peculiar to hot climates, us hile their resemblances, in a fossil one are now found in cold northern regions. It is next observ ed that the plants found in the coal strata bear a general resemblance to intertropical vegetables. These are re markable circumstances, it cannot be denied; hut they are not sufficient to prove a fact pregnant with such extraor dinary consequences, and depending on such extraordi nary changes, as those which must have either altered the cold or reversed all the climates of the earth. Loose as this reasoning is, it is imperfect even in its own kind, to nrove the interchange of climates at least, until it shows, in a correlative manner, that all the organized beings now found in a fossil state in tropical climates are analogous to the living ones of the present northern latitudes. If there was an early creation tuterly separated from a subsequent one, this peculiarity of the forms of species might as well exist as any other, without the necessity of supposing a change of climates.
We need scarcely state the objections to the value of this evidence, which depend on the question of species, and not on that of general analogies; as it is admitted that there are no very ancient species corresponding with ex isting ones, and it does not appear that any effectual ar gument can be drawn from the correspondence of general characters. To put the strongest case, there is no reason, a priori, why all palms should be limited to warm cli mates, although they are so now ; and such analogies, therefore, are far from being proofs. With respect to many shells, we may also add, that greater industry, and a more intimate acquaintance with the subject, has found that many of these which were once supposed to be inter tropical, exist in the seas adjoining to those places in which their buried remains are now found. Geologists have, in tact, appeared rather roore desirous to establish this opinion 01 a radical change of climate, than to inquire if it really admitted of proof. It is not unlikely that mat ters will one day be reversed, when some antagonist, suffi ciently qualified, shall adopt the opposite side of the ques tion. Hence much of the supposed evidence on this sub ject must be reLeived with caution.