Re: You don't know G_____! (Gould)

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 17:32:40 EDT

  • Next message: Howard J. Van Till: "Re: RFEP & ID"

    > What were the philosophical foundations of the early Geologists that were
    > deriving emperical data and scientific evidence for the age of the earth?
    > Michael?
    > Steve
    > You always do this type of thing to me Steve! But it is an important point
    which I can only answer in a cack-handed way.

    Like almost all scientists of all periods including all the scientists who
    read this the early geologists did not think much of their philosophical
    foundations. I am sure William Smith would not have understood the question
    and would have thought it too airy-fairy.

    I will take early geologists from 1660 to 1820. All believed in some kind of
    God and were somewhere along the spectrum of orthodox Christian (Prot or RC)
    to deist. Thus as God was rational they expected the earth to be rationally
    ordered. They considered their senses to be reliable whether in observation
    or experiment. N.B. not all science was experimental. They bowed the knee to
    Bacon and never considered what Baconianism really was.

    Most after about 1630 thought God (desist or Christian) first made chaos and
    then ordered it and looked for observations to explain the ordering. Those
    with a Christian affiliation whether Latitudinarian or not (Lats were the
    rationalistic liberals of 1700 - Ted forgive my oversimplification), thought
    that events were tied in with a fairly literal version of Genesis and reckon
    most rocks were deposited by the flood. That was the consensus in 1700. Most
    followed that in the 18 cent except the more deistic -Maupertius KAnt and

    as the 18cent continued more and more found a simple appeal to the Flood was
    no good and extended the timescale. Thus Buffon ( who was an RC whom did not
    take his Christian faith to bed with him ...) rejected a global flood and
    argued for an old age in 1750ff, following an RC priest Needham. Others did
    the same whatever religious persuasion.
    One was William Hamilton in the 1770s who lived in Naples. He noted the many
    historic lava flows i.e. post AD79- Pompeii and how after time soils formed
    on top of the lava flow. He then looked at earlier flows and note d the same
    thing and reckoned Vesusvius to go back 10s of thousands of years and thus
    the earth was anciueint. In c1779 de Saussure studied alpine rocks at
    Chamonix and reckoned that they must be very old - but no dates. There were
    many more in the latter decades of the 18 cent.

    I have tried to answer the question by summarising what the early geologists
    did. I dont think they had a well-formulated philosophical foundation but
    rather a sense that from Steno's principle of superposition rocks would be
    laid down in order. The important thing to note is that no-one started with
    the assumption of an old earth. In fact "geologists" (we cant use that word
    for pre 1800 workers) started with the assumption of a YOUNG earth and then
    slowly rejected it as the evidence went against. That is what happened to
    Glenn to his great credit and may be happening to Allen, who is echoing the
    views of the late 17th century people like Ray and Whiston who had
    considerably extended Ussher's timescale.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 17:28:46 EDT