Viewing the advent of Man, and what preceded it, it seems the analogy of
nature that there should be inferior, as well as superior, provinces in
the universe, and that the inferior may occupy an immensely larger
portion of Time than the superior. Why not, then, of Space?
“The earth was brute and inert, compared with its present condition;
dark and chaotic, so far as the light of reason and intelligence are
concerned, for countless centuries before man was created. Why then
may not other parts of creation be still in this brute and inert and
chaotic state, while the earth is under the influence of a higher
exercise of creative power? If the earth was for ages a turbid abyss
of lava and of mud, why may not Mars or Saturn be so still?... The
possibility that the planets are such rude masses, is quite as
tenable, on astronomical grounds, as the possibility that the planets
resemble the earth, in matters of which astronomy can tell us nothing.
We say, therefore, that the example of geology refutes the argument
drawn from the supposed analogy of one part of the universe with
another; and suggests a strong suspicion that the force of analogy,
better known, may tend _in the opposite direction_.”[34]
We have now gone through a large portion, embracing two of the three
sections into which we had divided this startling _Essay_; presenting as
full and fair an account of it as is consistent with our limits. Though
the author professes that he “does not pretend to disprove the Plurality
of Worlds, but to deny the existence of arguments making the doctrine
probable,” his undisguised object is to assign cogent reasons for
holding the opposite to be the true doctrine—the Unity of the World.
What has gone before is, moreover, on the assumption that the other
bodies of the universe are fitted, equally with the Earth, to be the
abodes of life. Before passing on, however, to the remaining section of
the _Essay_, which is decidedly hostile to that assumption, let us here
introduce on the scene Dr Whewell’s only hitherto avowed antagonist, Sir
David Brewster.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account