THE DOGMA OF EVOLUTION 



It is, I think, often assumed by evolutionists that 

 if deposits of the same fossil forms are found in dif- 

 ferent parts of the earth we are justified in assuming 

 them to be contemporaneous. I am certain that the 

 laity believes that a period classed as, for example, 

 the Carboniferous in America is exactly contempo- 

 raneous with the period of the same name in Europe 

 or Asia. A moment's consideration will convince one 

 that such is not the case ; geology can point with cer- 

 tainty to succession of time only at each limited area. 

 The indirect methods of correlation cannot do more 

 than to show that the strata designated by the name 

 of one period were deposited within the same division 

 of time; but, such a division of time is estimated in 

 hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of years. 



The cause of our inability to establish a chrono- 

 logical system is not due to our lack of data, but is 

 fundamental. Huxley has discussed this question and 

 we cannot do better than to follow his reasoning." 

 He says : "Standard writers on palaeontology take it 

 for granted, that deposits containing similar organic 

 remains are synchronous, at any rate in a broad sense. 

 ... Sir Henry De La Beche'^*' adduces conclusive 

 evidence to show that the different parts of one and 

 the same stratum, having a similar composition 



15 Huxley, Discourses; Biological and Geological Essays. The 

 reader should refer particularly to pp. 275-307 and 343-92, although 

 the entire volume should be read in order to get a clear idea of the 

 positive value of geology and palaeontology. 

 ^^ Researches in Theoretical Geology. 



C 1503 



