20 
because of a blunder as to the formation of granite, surely, 
then, earlier attention ought to have been paid to the matter 
of which granite is composed, before “adopting such a 
physical theory as the very basis of the geology of the eaith. 
But even this plea will not serve as a justification for such an 
inveterate adherence to this now abandoned theory, hven be- 
fore the Dean of Tort attacked it, namely, in 1843, a fellow 
of the Geological Society, Mr. Evan Hopkins— also now a 
member of the Victoria Institute-put forth a theory of the 
earth adverse to the nebular and plutomc hypotheses; and one 
of the main “facts ” to which he appealed was, that granite 
was a water formation, or a true crystallization, and could 
never have been formed by dry heat as the nebular theory re- 
quired. But his voice was not regarded, and not his tacts, as 
against the great name and gratuitous assertions of Laplace, 
unfortunately accepted by Dr. Buckland. In giving up tho 
theory, Sir Charles Lyell does not even notice him, although 
two years before the then President of the Geological Society, 
Professor Ramsay, had distinctly done so. At that time, also, 
I may observe, i.e. in 1862, Professor Ramsay said that he 
believed that the science of geology was on the eve of a great 
revolution” — the “science” that Bishop Colenso but a short 
time before had been preaching to his Zulus as the certain 
“ revelations ” of truth ! and to which, even since then, he 
dares once more to appeal as _ unquestionable truth, and as 
upsetting the statements of Scripture • . , , 
But if any doubt whether all that Dean Cockburn said, under 
somewhat provoking circumstances, was quite deserved, as to 
the disposition of the Geological Society to yield too much to 
the arqumsntum ad verecundiam, or as to the unwillingness ot the 
British Association to listen to contradictions to theories put 
forward by great names ; I can cite another witness, a Professor 
at Cambridge, with reference even to a mathematical discovery 
of his own, v/hich will place in a still stronger light the fact 
that, in his opinion, the present organizations among the 
scientific rather serve to retard the advancement of science, 
and to foster the maintenance of established dogmas in science 
than to admit new truths; while, at the same time, we know 
that all that may appear opposed to Scripture may be very freefy 
put forward in scientific societies, and by some men even m 
the pulpit ! Professor Challis thus expresses himself :— i 
know enough of the history of physical science to be aware 
that an advance of this kind in an abstruse department of 
science can be expected to make its way only y ® c j 
grees.” This was said but a few years ago, and notwithstand- 
ing the existence of the British Association ! 
