Early earth

1. Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Wednesday 25 August 1858, page 7
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article7299870
THE AGE OF THE EARTH.
»Sir,-In
your
Monday's
issuethereis an
rtiçle
by an
individual,
under
the secret
name of '
Opifer," criticising
the
course
of
dures
on the above subject lately delivered
by
ie|Dtho
Mechanics'Institution;
and, on tho
ell-recognised
maximof audi
alterant partent,
claim
the
privilege
of a short reply.
The
liter of thatarticle
has
totally misrepre
sented
the spirit
and tenor
of my
lectures;
and has
attempted
to drawa
parallel between
the
object
of the lateMr. HughMiller
and
my own,which, allow
me to say,
entirely
fails in its
application.
Whether
thatat
attempt
arose froma
deliberate
and
wilful
per»
version
of the truth,
or from a
ignorance
of
the scope
and
intention
of my
lectures,
I leave
to my
hearers
to
determine.
It is
sufficient
for me that the
analogy entirely
fails.
My clear
and
distinct object
was,as
stated
n tho
outset,
to remove
the
prejudices against
geology as
contradicting Scripture-to
show
thatthere
is
nothing
in the sacred narrative
to
contradict geologic
fact and
induction;
and to incite
to its more general study.
Mr.
Hugh Miller's object was
altogether different;
was to showa
specific
and
special accord-
ancewiththe Mosaic account
of
Creation,
in
its
various phases
; in which attempt
he has,
in my
opinion, failed,
and this I
implied
in
my
objections
to his
theory
of thosixdays
of
immense duration,
"Opifer
"
states
thatI am
conscious
of tha
delicacy
of the
question discussed,
and am
unwilling
to
sacrifice geology
to the
theology
must bow down
to,-hence
my
dubiety.
This
pointedly
deny; there
was no
dubiety
in
anything
I
stated-my declaration
of facts
and
principles
was clear, open,
and
honest.
I
dId not admit
(as said)
the
notion
of the
orijin of the
existing organic world developed
a series of regular
and adinsted
laws out
of its
primitive elements.
WhatI didsay
was,thatthe
elements
of the
inorganic
or
mineral kingdom
were created
in one promis
ous mass,
or
chaos,
and thatby the
action
d
chemical, electrical,
and
mechanical
laws
they
subsided
and
concreted
intoour present
staiified
and
crystallineformations,
while I
heldthatorganic
lifewasa
distinct
andspe
fic act of
creative
power
and
wisdom
in all
its
various types,
andnotthe
result
of a law
of
development
or
convertibility.
"Opifer"asserts
thatI set myself
to the
task of
torturing
facts and an ancient
wri-
ing intoan
identity
of
meaning,
and with
his view garbled texts and ignored passages,
didno suchthing.
I hadno
written
quo
tions fromtho Bible.
I readopenly various
texts in tho sacredvolumeclearly
and
strictly applicable
tomy
subject.
Andasto
the polite,
gentlemanly,
and
charitable
asser
tionthatI made
falsehood
to taketheplace
truth,
and was
applauded
for it. I leave
my
hearers
andtho
public
to judge
of its
applicability.
As to the
remaining observations
in defence
the infidel theory
of
development
by law,
and the
convertibility
of monkeys
intomen,
which
the writer believes,
I havenot at
present
timeto enter;
but if
"Opifer"
will
throw asidehis maskof
concealment,
and
comeforth openly
as an
honest
man,andas
comeforth openly
as an
honest
man,andas
the boldand
unflinching advocate
and sup
porterof tho
development hypothesis
will
me a
lecture
on tho
subject,
I doubt
nothe
willmeetmanyto enter
the lists withhim.
and
although
"
Opifer"
may be
enamored
of
s
origin according
to law,and thathe com
mencedexistence
as a monad,
and passed
roughthe wholeseries
of
zoophyte,
shell-
fish,fish,reptile,
quadruped,
to quadrumana—
im tho
highest
of which,
the ouraug outang
chimpanzee,
came forththe brains(such
as theyare)and
physical
form
of "
Opifer"
—
the publicwill not
approve
of this mode
the
creation
of man,the highest
and
noblest
work of God.
As I haveno
principles
or
theory
thatI
ed to he
ashamed
of,or blush
to
acknow
ge,1 sign
my name
in
full.
Prahran,
August21.
TO THE
EDITOR
OF THE
ARGUS.
Sir,- Your
correspondent,
"
Opifer,"
in to-
y'sissue
of The
Argus,while impugning
e
Biblical cosmogony,
accuses
its
defenders
torturing historic facts,
of
garbling texts,
ignoring passages
; butis
himself guilty
a
distortion
and
misquotation
of the most
agrant character.
He saysof tho
author
of
"
Vestiges
of
Creation,"
thathisviews
are
harmony
withthe
speculations
of the first
philosophers
in
abstract science.
" For exam
plewhatsaysButler
in thegreat
'
Analogy'?
Our nature
corresponds
to our external
dition:' improve
the
external condition,
d you havea
progressive development
of
nature—'
the
elevation
of the one leads
the
corresponding
raising
of the other,
minga
permanent
change
of
character.'
This,
in
innumerable
other
quotations
of
similar
sort, withoutbeing severed
fromtheir
text,proveButler's leading
ideato be
sameas thatof the
much-maligned,
causemuch
misunderstood
and much
represented,
author
- viz.,thatad-
vancement
is a lawor a
method
of
ture. Lifeitself
is
change,
anditsform
pendson its
relative external conditions."
hat Butlerdoes
say-Analogy,
PartI.,
p.5,Sectionl.-"Every
species
of
creature
we see,
designed
fora
particular
wayof
. . . Change
a man's
capacities
character
to the
degree
in
which
it is con-
rablethey maybe
changed,
andhe would
altogether incapable
of a humancourse
of
andhuman
happiness
; as
incapable
as if,
naturecontinuingunchanged,
he were
redin a
worldwhere
he hadno
sphere
of
ion,nor
any
objects
to
answer
hisappe-
es,
passions,
and
affections
of anysort.
One
ng is setover
against another,
as an
dentwriterexpresses
it.Our
nature
cor
ponds
to our
external condition.
Without
s
correspondence
therewouldbe no possi
ityof anysuchthing
as
human lifeand
man
happiness;
which lifeand
happiness
therefore
a
result
fromour
nature
and
ndition jointly."
It
will
be
seen that
thefirst seven words
E»n?Ät8qu,ottttMm
ore to bo found
in
! 1 b?
DrSfesse8
to
Quota from
; that
rffr
vu,devel°Pment
of the nature
C1%fromimprovedexternnlcondition
CuZÄ«7en a,S'»nniary1of
But
DnA>whiclî
li* ,?,B0 °PP°se(1
to tia
fcT ?"*,'
T,
lnte»ectual
and bodily
t and
Z y ba,
""Proved
toa
certain
ex
tiikv¡í"rtherlthíit
the la8tthreelines.
¿,«hIiîAmaii5s?.f,ï,,ota*ion.Meme»ntto
». "n"ir
ÍPtatton,
arenotto be found
»r.npffl£
places them.
n°r «o they
St A
t0h4°iWh9]Ä
of tha
oh»Ptor.
which

2. Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Wednesday 25 August 1858, page 7 (2)
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article7299870
MÎral Divine0»Pr°batI°a
"8
Iuto&eI
Ät*1!10^1,?11
lB
nee,1fQl
'o »
writer
oflK.*0£elLe,ved-
Whftt Bhall we
an
rrmütt8r,?
,SH1
we notsay"isit
ÄÄohol5?
An
inKün'o«8
and
SedSt£Dd nJ?rlBlt
mind twia«ng
!Ä?nd th/°U8n
such
a
cause lost
to
inlh« itoro?da? Whataro wo to ex
SÄoi
Probî,ty
froma
community
Äuth?»y
thU8
be
mttd0
t0 tak°
& °.l
1?w?
hxave
t0
waltfor
a
reli
sÄrba11
S?
^ronger
withthede
mentof sound
scientific acquirement,
au c ear- that.we
have notto wait
a
philosophy impatient
of
contradiction,
a
philosopher
whodoes not
scruple
to
practice
the artshe
condemns.
Your obedientservant,
. A. B.
. 'O THE
EDITOR
OF THE
AROUS'.
IS.«?» tWuJ
rescript
of
scientific
îÄ n"
&orhap8.Permit
metocaí
?mZÏÏ: Mi?rris
8
to«*««»
in tha
«. ÄÄl^Ä8
"cently.fwm
the
»'C'Äw?d
thtf vorl,OUB theories
twJxTd
from time to* tme
rerrard
«
SBtoh°r
of
cl^tion
I was
etraok
surprise
to
observe
the
advocacy
of the
and
effete doctrine
of
Cuvier,
andth
dent
confusion
of thelawof
Unity
of
transcendental
theories
of Goethe,Oken,
Liebnitz,andGeoffroy
St. Hilaire,
'» und
fliS?ainly,ext'"«'ai3hed
by the
«»of ?'K 'n
l0ßl0,?f,OuvlBr1.bnVtiia.
ile'.and
Iori?l?ftu<.aol'v
demonstrated
by
**Ä Ä°d,by«tttomtoto
ana
doctrine
of "Unity
of
Organisation,"
11 of st, u
.completely illustrated
(tha
Î^PXSOA^
íy
th?DPosent
England
—the
illustrious Owen—justly
led by
Humboldt^8trI,onB Own-justly
»«4;oldt'U Ph" 9rand
anatomist*
Í
StlÄn?T 9rßan'la«on,
then,
eTslop^y.
»f malIn thecomee
of
ifÄgK
%
kingdom,
fromthe
Sil
hecarlÄ
Tne insect
mustpasi
K th03°
of the
vertebrate
sub
»
kiTjcdom.
This law gives no
support
to the
pantheistic,transmutational,
or any other
form of atheism,
but
furnishes
new argu
ments in support
of tho highest, attainable
truths,
by
recognising
an
archetype,
or, ideal
exemplar,
for the
vertebrated
animalsprov-
ing thatthe
knowledge
of sucha being as
man must have existedbeforeman
appeared,
so that theremust needs be an
antecedent
mind or
understanding;
the Divinemind
that plannedthe archetype,
and foreknew
its
modifications.
I had thought
that loversof
science,
and
particularly
its
exponents,
had done with the
respectable
sham of
perverting
truthsby the
light of the
Hebraic writings.
" The Age of
the Earth!"Dr. Murraymade many allu
FICIB to the
Plesiosaur,
the
Icthyosaur,
and
Tierodactyles,
duringthe course; but even
tie
imagination
is baffledin
attempting
to
realise
the lapse of agessince theylived and
moved upon the sandy shoresof the
Silurian
sea. The
obscurity
of ancienthistoryrenders
it
uncertain
where the
apocryphal
ends and
it
uncertain
where the
apocryphal
ends and
the authentic begins.Early profanehistory
is emblazoned
with myth and
exaggeration,
and every historian
of olden time opens his
volumewith a romance.
But sciencewrites
the historyof nature'soperations,
untram-
melled
by the
cosmogony
of any sector race,
yet withoutderogating
from the Divine
power;
nor is it
necessary
evenin a
popular
lecture
for the
philosopher
to trenchupon the
province
of the Divine.
YourB
faithfnllv,
E. BOWMANS,
M.D.
TO THE KDITOll OP TUB ARGUS.
Sir,-Though
far from agreeingwith your
correspondent
"Opifer"In all his scientific
views,more
especially
those bearingupon thu
peculiartheorypropounded
In the famous
"Vestiges
of
Creation,"
I cannotrefrainfrom
expressing
my extremesatisfaction
at the
toneand tenor
of his able letter
in The Argus
of Monday.
I, too, felt
somewhat ashamed
of
the puerile attempts
madeby Dr. Murray,
in
his recentlectures,
to
reconcile
the facts of
geologicalsciencewith what is wrongly
termedthe "Mosaic
cosmogony."
I felt that
to have such
puerilities
publicly taughtin
thiscolony,
and
received
with
acclamation
by a
numerous audience,
as if theywere
the very latestresultsof scienceand
philosophy,
is a libel upon the
intelligence
of
the community.
If popularteachingthere
mustbe, let it, at all
events,
be
honest,
thorough,
and
fearless,
but never shallowand
evasive.
Dr. Murrays audienceapparently
accepted
his
attempts
to showthatthere was no neces
saiy
antagonism
betweenthe known facts of
geclogyand the assumeddogmasof Genesis
as being a
complete refutation
of all objec-
tionsto what is wronglycalled"biblical
geology."
Your
correspondent
" Opifer" has
to
entirely disposed
of that mistake
that 1
neednot refer further
to it. WhatI wantto
bringout is the
surprising deficiencies
ex
bibited
by Dr. Murray
as a popular lecturer
on science,
and his
consequent incompetency
for the task he took in hand.
Whenany man
stands
up as an
author
i ta
five
expounder
of any branch
of
science,
he
is bound to be himself thoroughly
well versed
in it-he mustknowits latestobserved
facts
its most recent
inductions,
its newestdeve-
lopments;' otherwise
he subjectshimselfte
the chargeof
imposture.
Now, it
certainly
did not appear
fromthe whole tenor of Dr
Murray's lectures
that he is
familiar
with tin
presentconditions
of the very question
he
was
lecturing
upon so
confidently.
All that
be said,
therefore,
beyondhis simplestate
mentsof tho
elementary
factsof
geology—as
theymay be foundin any
introductory
treatise
on the
science—was
so muchpure
waste,
and wouldhavebeen
harmless
if it
were not
misleading.
If that gentleman
should
have
occasion
to lecture
on the same
subject again,perhaps
he willbe goodenough
to takethe few
following
facts intohis consi
deration:
1. Professor
Baden Powell,—no "infidel'
man of
science,
but an
orthodox Professor
a
Oxford,—has
just
published
a work, entitled
"
Christianity
withoutJudaism,"
in whichhe
laysit downas a
fundamental
axiom
(a self
evident truth)
thatby no
efforts
of
interpre
tation
can the Mosaicaccount
of the
creation
be
reconciled
with the factsof
creation.
neednot say that,
as a man of
science,
Pro
fessor Powell ranksin the firstclass,
amongstthe
Herschell,
Lyells,Babbages,
and
Murchisons.
Now,any man takingDr. Mur
ray's
stand-point
is boundto meetthislatest

3. Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Wednesday 25 August 1858, page 7 (3)
National Library of Australia http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article7299870
ray's
stand-point
is boundto meetthislatest
statement
or the caseof "
Geology
v.
Genesis
andto
rebut,
if he can,tho
entire
massof
factsand
arguments
on whichit is based
These
he willfindset forth
in the
learned
Professor's
workon the the "Unity
of Worlds
and of Nature."
2 Dr,
Whewell's
great
argument,
as set
forth
in his
splendid
work,
" Of the
Plurality
of Worlds,"
has liftedtho whole
discussion
respecting
the meritsof biblical science
into
a new regionof thought
and
speculation
Dr.
Murray seems
to me to be
totally
unac
quainted
withtheworkin
question
; butif
so, he
certainly
is not
qualified
to
lecture
on
cosmicalscience.
If he knowsthe
argument
of
ProfessorWhewell,
he is bound
to accept
it,or to
refute
it.In
either
casehe must
alterthe wholetexture
of his
teachings
respecting geology and Scripture.
3. Facts have
recently
come to light
provingbeyondquestion
that man existed
ages beforethe currently receivedMosaic
epoch.
Dr.
Bunsen—a
nameof the very
highestauthority
in historical researches
adduces evidence,
in his greatworkon
"Egypt's
Place in
Universal History,"
to
provethatman existed
in the
district
bor
deredby the
Caucasus
and MountArarat
at
least20,000yearsbefore
our era.Has Dr.
Murraystudied
and answered
the historic
reasonings
of
Professor Bunsen?
If not,
whatvalue
arehisviews
on thehuman epoch
in
cosmical science
?
4. HasDr.
Murrayever read thegreat
at
unanswerable
argument
of ThomasDe Quin-
cey, proving
that the
assumption
of the
Bible's
beingan
authoritative
teacher
of
science
is
absolutelydestructive
of its claims
as a divine revelation
of
transcendant
spiri
tual
truths?
Thisone
argument,
likethat
othergreatone of
Professor Whewell's,
ac
tually
revolutionises
the whole character
the discussion
under
consideration.
5. Has Dr. Murray
acquainted
himself
with
the
profound
viewsof
Coleridge
on
Scriptural
inspiration
?—the viewswhichare now held
by almostall
enlightened Christian thinkers
andby which
a dense massof old
ignorance
anderror havebeen
cleared
away,
in thedi
rection
Dr. Murray
is
working.
If that
gentleman's studies,
I
repeat,
have
not
included
all tho points
here
enumerated
and
others
that
I
might haveadded,
he is not
capable
of
dealing
withthe
question
he has
takenin
hand—he neither
knowsall the
arguments
fortheBible
on theonehand,
nor
for geology
on the
other—he misinterprets
boththe
inspired
wordand the
physical
science—he misleads
his
audience,
and he de
ceives himself.
I am myself
but the
humblest student
of
these,
the
grandest subjects
of human in
quiry,
but
I am,
at
least,
an
honest
one
; and
cannot help feeling indignant
when sciolism
halftruths
and real
ignorance,
are
presented
to the public
in the guise
of
genuine science
and consummate knowledge.
I am,&c,
A LOVEROF TRUTH
August
24.