335 
But it means nothing* of the kind. Such evidence as could, 
with any degree of propriety, be called “ negative/' must be 
such as would nullify some apparently positive evidence opposed 
to it. That to which we are geologically introduced has no 
such effect. The ce negative evidence ” of popular geology is 
only that to which we are told the Irishman appealed, when, 
on being confronted with a witness who saw him commit the 
crime laid to his charge, said he could bring a dozen who did 
not see him do it ! For example, what were called the “'oldest 
rocks ” were termed azoic , because it was held that no relics of 
life had been found in them. And, as it was held also that 
no relics of life had yet been found beneath them, it was con- 
cluded that there was no life on the surf ace of the globe when they 
were formed. The support of this great doctrine was nega- 
tive evidence.” In other words, it was not known that there 
were no relics of life in such rocks — there was no evidence of 
such a negative ; on the contrary, very worthy testimony had 
been borne to the effect that such relics had been found — still 
less was it known that there never had been such relics of 
life in these old rocks ; there is now, at least, pretty strong 
evidence that such relics existed, though, they have been obli- 
terated in the alterations of the strata in which they were 
inclosed. It was only generally unknown whether or not there 
were such relics of life in these rocks, or under them. We 
need scarcely say that all conclusions built on ignorance, under 
the name of ce evidence,” are utterly unworthy of science. 
We have only too strong reason to dwell on this conjectural 
aspect of. the fashionable geology of our day. It is not as if 
only details, here and there, were turning out false, while grand 
principles remain evidently sound. If we do not err greatly, 
the speculative geological mind is escaping out of one great 
mistake in principle, and that only by leaping into another as 
great, because its leaders are careless as to the true nature of 
their reasoning. When their evidence is not “ negative,” or, in 
plain words, not nothing , it is so utterly inadequate as to leave 
the ideas supposed to be proved by it, as purely conjectural as 
it they were altogether matters of fancy. For example, look 
at the measurement of time believed to be required for the 
upheaval of land. “ Two feet and a half in a century ” is a 
scale ot upheaval adopted for the whole world during* ail time ! 
Aa liy ? Only because there is apparently some reason to think 
that the coast of Norway, taking* the north and south of that 
coast together, and striking the average, is rising at that 
two-and-a-half-feet rate ! The observation of this mere scrap 
of the earth's surface, and that during a very brief period, is 
taken as if it furnished a sufficient standard for measuring the 
