I 



TWO OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 



i^and must continue to go on. And the inference 

 I^Bbannot be avoided that in due course of time the 

 ^R)rocess must work specific variations. The only 

 ^K)urely hypothetical portion of the theory is the 

 ^^wssumption that past geologic time has been long 

 enough to allow of the total process of evolution 

 by such infinitesimal increments. But concern- 

 ing this assumption, it is the clear verdict of 

 logic, that if the theory is thoroughly substan- 

 tiated in all its other portions, we have the right 

 to claim as much time as is needful, provided 

 we do not run counter to conclusions legitimately 

 reached by astronomy, geology, or physics. Now 

 concerning the age of the earth, neither astro- 

 nomy, nor geology, nor physics has as yet had 

 anything conclusive to say ; and it must be left 

 for future inquiries to give us the quantitative 

 data requisite for settling this point.^ We can- 



^ The reader who wishes to see how fallacious all attempts 

 at reaching the age of the earth from astronomico-physical ar- 

 guments are likely to prove with our present resources, may 

 consult Huxley's Lay Sermons y pp. 268—279. 



^[See Fiske's further remarks on this subject in the Excur- 

 sions of an Evolutionist y I. The discussion of the physical and 

 geological evidences of the age of the earth has become more 

 prominent in the literature since Fiske wrote the sentences of 

 the text. Lord Kelvin has recently elaborated his earlier physi- 

 cal arguments in favour of a decided limitation of the age of the 

 earth ; and geologists have undertaken new forms of reply. 

 Yet though the question now has more *' actuality '* than Fiske 

 assigns to it, it is still far from a solution about which authori- 

 ties agree.] 



69 



