Masterpieces of Science 



thus implied, is inconsistent with the conclusions 

 arrived at by the astronomer and the physicist. 

 I may venture to say that I am familiar with 

 those conclusions, inasmuch as some years ago, 

 when president of the Geological Society of Lon- 

 don, I took the liberty of criticising them, and of 

 showing in what respects, as it appeared to me, 

 they lacked complete and thorough demonstra- 

 tion. But, putting that point aside, suppose 

 that, as the astronomers, or some of them, and 

 some physical philosophers tell us, it is impossible 

 that life could have endured upon the earth for 

 so long a period as is required by the doctrine of 

 evolution — supposing that to be proved — I desire 

 to be informed, what is the foundation for the 

 statement that evolution does require so great a 

 time ? The biologist knows nothing whatever of 

 the amount of time which may be required for 

 the process of evolution. It is a matter of fact 

 that the equine forms, which I have described to 

 you, occur, in the order stated, in the Tertiary 

 formations. But I have not the slightest means 

 of guessing whether it took a million of years, or 

 ten millions, or a hundred millions, or a thousand 

 millions of years, to give rise to that series of 

 changes. A biologist has no means of arriving 

 at any conclusions as to the amount of time which 

 may be needed for a certain quantity of organic 

 change. He takes his time from the geologist. 

 The geologist, considering the rate at which 

 deposits are formed and the rate at which denuda- 

 tion goes on upon the surface of the earth, ar- 

 120 



