OMPHALOS. 
185 
Minor. But in the first created individual of a species this evidence 
must have been false. 
Ergo. The evidence of previous stages of existence which the earth 
bears within itself are false. 
Mr. Jukes very properly rejects the above conclusion from the pre¬ 
mises ; but it appears to us that it is unfair to assert that Mr. Gosse ever 
drew such a conclusion at all. Let us throw the syllogism into a more 
exact form, and draw its just conclusion:— 
Second Syllogism:— 
Major. All individuals of an organic species bear within themselves 
evidences of previous stages of existence, &c. &c. 
Minor. Some individuals of an organic species, viz., the first created, 
bear this evidence falsely. 
Ergo .—Some things, bearing evidence falsely of previous stages of 
existence, do bear evidence of previous stages of existence. 
The preceding conclusion ( Eatisi ) is logically deduced from the pre¬ 
mises, and, if we mistake not, is a conclusion arrived at abundantly in 
“ Omphalos.” The defect in the syllogism attributed by Mr. Jukes to Mr. 
Gosse is not in the premises, but in the deduction of the conclusion. 
The premises are valid according to the rules of Aristotle, and admit of 
having an exact conclusion drawn from them, viz., that it sometimes 
happens that evidence of previous stages of existence is not necessarily 
true evidence. This is the very conclusion aimed at all through the 
illustrations in “ Omphalos,” and is unquestionably true, provided the 
truth of the premises be granted. 
Mr. Gosse adds to this true conclusion the possible, but improbable 
(as we think) hypothesis that the earth may resemble the first created 
individuals of organic species in this respect; and the possibility of this 
hypothesis must be granted to him, without supposing that he assumes, 
either that the earth is an animal, or that it is the first created of its kind. 
Geology is no more exempt than are the other branches of human 
science from the control of logic; and although many geologists are in 
the habit of speaking and writing as if their ingenious conjectures 
were mathematically deduced from well-ascertained facts, it is high 
time that they should come down from their self-assumed position, and 
humbly submit themselves to the laws of thought that must always go¬ 
vern well-educated minds. We believe that Mr. Gosse has rendered to 
Geology an important service by recalling attention to the slippery basis 
on which even its fundamental assumptions rest. 
As for Mr. Jukes’s argument against “ Omphalos,” drawn from the 
supposition that it represents the Creator as a “ deceiver,” or, as other 
geologists have coarsely and profanely expressed it, a “humbug,” we do 
not conceive that it has the slightest force in a logical point of view, 
though, of course, in estimating a question of mere probabilities, it comes 
in as of some value, in the same manner as the argument from final causes 
is used in natural theology. It signifies, however, but little in the present 
case, as it could be used, and was used, with equal force against Bishop 
Berkeley’s denial of the existence of matter. 
