Buffon's Natural History, Volume 01 (of 10): Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Mineral, &c. &cBuffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de
History
Buffon's Natural History, Volume 01 (of 10): Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Mineral, &c. &c
Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc, comte de
Natural history
why were not the shells dissolved as well as all the rest? Here he makes
a discourse on the organization of shells and bones of animals, by which
he pretends to prove that their texture being fibrous, and different
from that of minerals, their power of cohesion was different also; after
all, we have, says he, only to suppose that the power of gravity and
cohesion did not entirely cease, but that it was only diminished
sufficient to disunite all the parts of minerals, and not those of
animals. To all this we cannot be prevented from discovering, that our
author's philosophy was not equal to his talents for observation; and I
do not think it necessary seriously to refute opinions which have no
foundation, especially when they have been imagined against the rules of
probability, and drawn from consequences contrary to mechanical laws.
FOOTNOTES:
[132:A] An Essay towards the Natural History of the Earth, &c. by John
Woodward.
ARTICLE V.
EXPOSITION OF SOME OTHER SYSTEMS.
It is plain that the three forementioned hypotheses have much in common
with each other. They all agree in this point, that during the deluge
the earth changed its form, as well externally as internally; but these
speculators have not considered that the earth before the deluge was
inhabited by the same species of men and animals, and must necessarily
have been nearly such as it is at present. The sacred writings teach us,
that before the deluge there were rivers, seas, mountains, and forests.
That these rivers and mountains were, for the most part, retained in the
same situations; the Tigris and Euphrates were the rivers of the ancient
paradise; that the mountain of Armenia, on which the ark rested, was one
of the highest mountains in the world at the deluge, as it is at
present: that the same plants and animals which exist now, existed then;
for we read of the serpent, of the raven, of the crow, and of the dove,
which brought the olive branch into the ark. Although Tournefort asserts
there are no olive trees for more than 400 miles from Mount Ararat, and
passes some absurd jokes thereon[138:A], it is nevertheless certain
there were olives in this neighbourhood at the time of the deluge, since
holy writ assures us of it in the most express terms; but it is by no
means astonishing that in the space of 4000 years the olive trees should
have been destroyed in those quarters, and multiplied in others; it is
therefore contrary to scripture and reason, that those authors have
supposed the earth was quite different from its present state before the
deluge; and this contradiction between their hypothesis and the sacred
text, as well as physical truths, must cause their systems to be
rejected, if even they should agree with some phenomena. Burnet gives
neither observations, nor any real facts, for the support of his system.
Woodward has only given us an essay, in which he promised much more than
he could perform: his book is a project, the execution of which has not
been seen.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account