98 THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION 



one regret that it had not been devoted to a more laudable 

 purpose, must constantly marvel at the character of mind of 

 the man who can so go into the literature of the subject and 

 still continue to hold such preposterous opinions." {Loc. cit., 

 p. 702.) 



In the present instance, however, our interest centers, not 

 on the unimportant question of his official status in geological 

 circles, but exclusively on the objective validity of his argu- 

 ment against the chronometric value of the index fossil. All 

 citations, therefore, from his work will be supported, in the 

 sequel, by collateral testimony from other authors of recog- 

 nized standing. It is possible, of course, to inject irrelevant 

 issues. Price, for example, follows Sir Henry Howorth in his 

 endeavor to substitute an aqueous catastrophe for the glacia- 

 tion of the Quaternary Ice Age, and he adduces many in- 

 teresting facts to justify his preference for a deluge. But this 

 is neither here nor there; for we are not concerned with the 

 merits of his "new catastrophism." It is his opportune revival 

 in modern form of the forgotten, but extremely effective, 

 objection raised by Huxley and Spencer against the alleged 

 universality of synchronously deposited fossiliferous sediments, 

 that constitutes our sole preoccupation here. It is Price's 

 merit to have shown that, in the light of recently discovered 

 facts, such as "deceptive conformities" and "overthrusts," this 

 objection is far graver than it was when first formulated by 

 the authors in question. 



Mere snobbery and abuse is not a sufficient answer to a diffi- 

 culty of this nature, and we regret that men, like Schuchert, 

 have replied with more anger than logic. The orthodox geol- 

 ogist seems unnecessarily petulant, whenever he is called upon 

 to verify or substantiate the foundational principles of lithic 

 chronology. One frequently hears him make the excuse that 

 "geology has its own peculiar method of proof." To claim ex- 

 emption, however, from the universal criterions of criticism and 

 logic is a subterfuge wholly unworthy of a genuine science, 

 and, if Price insists on discussing a subject, which the ortho- 



