469 
discussion, and I must say I think Dr. McCausland’s paper is one of the 
most unsatisfactory we have had here. In the first place it is most un- 
scientific ; one cannot make out clearly from the paper itself what particular 
theory Dr. McCausland wishes to put forward. I do not find his own theory 
logically stated as a theory ; it is supported by no arguments whatever, and 
there is no array of facts to deal with. It is with such vague assertions 
that I conceive this Society has particularly to deal. Let me take up the 
first principles he starts with with regard to geology. He considers that 
certain geological questions are so far decided now that any attempt to con- 
trovert them is somewhat similar to a profanation of Holy Scripture. He 
says, — 
“ Such loosenings of the foundations of acquired knowledge are as treason- 
able to the cause of scientific truth, as the denial of the divine origin of the 
Mosaic record is to the cause of Scripture inspiration.” 
But I find these very subjects are now matters of dispute among geologists 
themselves, and considered to be fit and proper subjects for discussion 
by those who are striving to advance the progress of geology as a science. 
Geology is one of our most important sciences, and it is in the most imperfect 
and incomplete state — too imperfect and incomplete to tell us all that 
may be known concerning the history of the earth. Geology is imperfect 
because it gives us a very imperfect acquaintance with what may be 
determined from the present surface of the earth or the scratchings that man 
is able to make on its surface. We know very little indeed of the geology of 
the earth’s surface. Then we are told that we ought to compare the records 
of the past with what we find existing on the earth now. But how little do 
we know of the fauna of the sea. More than ninety-nine hundredths of the 
fossils in our museums are fossils which belong to marine strata ; but what do 
we know of the fauna of the sea at present '? We are in a state of great 
ignorance with regard to all deep-sea fauna, and we are only able therefore 
to open our eyes to the great imperfection of science. Sir Charles Lyell 
himself admits, in his most recent writings, that the progress of geology as a 
science has been kept back by men’s attachment to scientific hypotheses — 
mere hasty generalizations of certain meagre facts upon which men put 
a certain interpretation ; and the interpretation they put on those facts 
has caused them to be blind when other facts were brought before them, 
which other facts they have refused to admit. All those facts that Sir 
Charles Lyell brings forward are for particular purposes and to support 
a particular theory or view of his own. He brings forward a series of facts 
to show you that the progress of recent geology has gone to prove that 
there is not that distinction which was supposed to exist between the 
fauna of different strata — that there is a greater degree of interfusing and 
interpenetration than was supposed between those species. The species 
supposed to be of modern origin are found in far more ancient strata than 
was believed, and that is the kind of progress that geology is making. Just 
recently a discovery has been made which brings down the whole of the 
first part of Dr. McCausland’s paper. Dr. Carpenter has been out with 
