The Foot-prints of the Creator : $b or, The Asterolepis of Stromness — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
The Foot-prints of the Creator : $b or, The Asterolepis of Stromness
John Stuart Mill · en
Viewing this _olive leaf_ of the Old Red Sandstone as not at all devoid
of poetry, our author invites us to a voyage from the latest formation up
to the first zone of the Silurian formation,—thus passing from ancient to
still more ancient scenes of being, and finding, as at the commencement
of our voyage, a graceful intermixture of land and water, continent,
river, and sea.
But though the existence of a true Placoid, a real vertebrated fish, in
the Cambrian limestone of Bala, and of true wood at the base of the Old
Red Sandstone, are utterly incompatible with the development hypothesis,
its supporters, thus driven to the wall, may take shelter under the
vague and unquestioned truth that the lower plants and animals preceded
the higher, and that the order of creation was fish, reptiles, birds,
mammalia, quadrumana, and man. From this resource, too, our author
has cut off his opponents, and proceeds to show that such an order of
creation, “at once wonderful and beautiful,” does not afford even the
slightest presumption in favor of the hypothesis which it is adduced to
support.
This argument is carried on in a popular and amusing dialogue in the
_eleventh_ chapter. Mr. Miller shows, in the clearest manner, that
“superposition is not parental relation,” or that an organism lying
above another gives us no ground for believing that the lower organism
was the parent of the higher. The theorist, however, looks only at those
phases of truth which are in unison with his own views; and, when truth
presents no such favorable aspect, he finally wraps himself up in the
folds of ignorance and ambiguity—the winding-sheet of error refuted
and exposed. We have not yet penetrated, says he, in feeble accents,
to the formations which represent the dawn of being, and the simplest
organism may yet be detected beneath the lowest fossiliferous rocks.
This undoubtedly _may be_, and Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Leonard Horner
are of opinion that such rocks may yet be discovered; while Sir Roderick
Murchison and Professor Sedgwick and Mr. Miller are of an opposite
opinion. But even were such rocks discovered to-morrow, it would not
follow that their organisms gave the least support to the development
hypothesis. In the year 1837, when fishes were not discovered in the
Upper Silurian rocks, the theorist would have rightly predicted the
existence of lower fossiliferous beds; but when they are discovered, and
their fossils examined, they furnish the strongest argument that could
be desired against the theory they were expected to sustain. This fact,
no doubt, is so far in favor of the supposition that there may be still
lower fossil-bearing strata; but, as Mr. Miller observes, “The pyramid of
organized existence, as it ascends into the by-past eternity, inclines
sensibly towards its apex,—that apex of ‘_beginning_’ on which, on far
other than geological grounds, it is our privilege to believe. The broad