1877.] Catastrophism and Evolution. 453 
ures the rate of past geological action by the phenomena of to- 
day; the other asserts that the present furnishes absolutely no 
ey. ‘This irreconcilable difference finds its most pronounced ex- 
pression when applied to the past history of life on the planet. 
If catastrophes extirpated all life at oft-repeated intervals from 
the time of its earliest introduction, then creation must neces- 
sarily have been as often repeated. If this is the case, it is plain 
that the Creator took pains each time to improve on the lately 
obliterated forms. If, on the other hand, the uniformitarian bi- 
ologists are correct in their belief of the descent of all animal life 
from one or a few primeval types, then catastrophes of a univer- 
sally destructive character cannot have occurred, and the changes 
which are proven to have taken place in the earth’s surface may 
have been as moderate and harmless as they maintain. The uni- 
formitarians reject the idea of a rapid and destructive rate of geo- 
logical revolution in the past, first, because the present course of 
nature offers no parallel suddenness of action; and, secondly, be- 
cause they conceive that nature never moves by leaps. They de- 
rive great comfort from quoting the well-known saying of Aris- 
totle, that ** Nature never does with her greater what she can do 
with her less.” They are especially fond of objecting to catastro- 
phes on account of the vast force necessitated. I confess that this 
Seems to me a singularly fallacious view. Absolutely identical 
expenditures of energy are required to elevate a continent or de- 
press an ocean basin given distances, whether the operation is in- 
stantaneous or infinitely slow. No geologist will hesitate a mo- 
ment to admit that the question between the schools is not one of 
geological result, for both read the results alike. I am sure no 
student of energy will object to my statement that the result re- 
quires identical energy, whether employed after the uniformi- 
tarian or the catastrophic method. If, as I assert, geological re- 
sult and the energy to produce it are identical, whichever school 
“is correct, then the only issue between the contestants reduces it- 
self simply and solely to the one question of rate of geological 
change. In that view, uniformitarianism is the harmless, unde- 
structive rate of to-day prolonged backward into the deep past. 
This is the belief hinted at by Aristotle and Pythagoras, fought 
for by Goethe, Lamarck, and Geoffroy St. Hilaire, held to by 
- Hutton, Lyell, and most British geologists, accepted with a 
lover’s credulity by nearly all evolutionists, and finally trumpeted 
about by the army of scientific fashion followers who would 
gladly die rather than be caught wearing an obsalete mode or be- 
_ lieving in any penultimate thing. 
