DR. WHEWELL'S VIEWS CONDEMNED. 267 



dentiy quite arbitrary, resting exactly on the limits of the 

 knowledge existing at any time, and always flying further 

 and further back,in proportion as our knowledge increases. 

 Had Dr. Wheweli been writing fifty years ago, he would 

 of course have included among his palaetiological scien- 

 ces the formation of strata, and the intrusions of the gra- 

 nitic and trappean among the aqueous rocks, which inge- 

 nuity has since explained by existing causes ; — for there 

 is not a single argument for his considering the formation 

 of globes and origin of species as palaetiological, which 

 would not have applied with equal force to these phenom- 

 ena before the days of Pallas and Hutton. Against a 

 theory of mere assumption — a reasoning from ignorance 

 to ignorance — such considerations form serious objection. 

 But let us come to closer argument. Let us inquire rwtf 

 the idea of a different set of causes for the more impor« 

 tant of these phenomena agrees with such exact knowl* 

 edge as we have attained respecting them. 



" According to the nebular hypothesis," says Dr. 

 Wheweli, " the formation of this our system of sun, 

 planets, and satellites, was a process of the same kind as 



those which are still going on in the heavens 



But . . the uniformitarian doctrine on this subjed 

 rests on most unstable foundations. We have as yet only 

 very vague and imperfect reasonings to show that by such 

 condensation a material system such as ours could result ; 

 and the introduction of organized beings into such a ma- 

 terial system is utterly out of the reach of our philosophy. 

 Here . . therefore, we are led to regard the present 

 order of the world as pointing towards an origin altogether 

 of a different kind from anything which our material 

 science can grasp." Because the nebular hypothesis 

 rests on unstable foundations, and " nothing has been 

 pointed out in the existing order of things which has any 

 resemblance or analogy, of any valid kind, to that crea- 

 tive energy which must be exerted in the production of 

 new species," — therefore, according to Dr. Wheweli, we 

 are " driven to assume events not included in the course 

 of nature" as having formerly taken place Such is his 

 reasoning. Now let us call to mind a few of the laws 

 ascertained to have oeen concerned in the cosmical ar- 

 rangements, leaving for the meantime all that is doubtful 

 in the nebular hypothesis entirely out of view, Tb* pro- 

 portion of the equatorial to the polar diameter c( th*' earth 



