Chapter 9 Chapter 5 Geology and Natural History from 1800 to 1859-1

Darwin figured out the mechanism of natural selection in the 1830s, but he didn't publish it until 1859.We can therefore return to his work later, focusing first on developments by those who were unaware of this profound change at the same time.Some of these developments laid the groundwork, directly or indirectly, for modern evolution, but we must consider these developments in light of their context and not as ladders to Darwinism.Even those ideas that we know had a direct influence on Darwin contained elements that did not fit with a fully Darwinian worldview.It used to be the more common way to trace the precursors of Darwinism to Charles Ryle's uniformist geology, in which all change was gradual through the action of visible causes.It is thought that Darwin simply applied this element of continuity to the biological world in the same way as it does in the physical world.Ryle's opponents, the "catastrophists," are often dismissed as reactionary thinkers who subordinate science to religion, such as their efforts to justify the biblical flood story (Gillispie, 1951; classic For the history of geology, see Adams, 1938; Geikie, 1897; von Zittel, 1901).

We now know that looking at things that way is too simplistic.Darwin did benefit a lot from Ryle, but the "uniformity principle" is based on a stable world picture, and neither Darwin nor modern evolutionists can accept this view.Evolution has an element of development, Ryle denies development, catastrophists accept and expand the idea of ​​development.It is thus possible to argue that the modern conception of evolution draws some sustenance from both catastrophism and uniformity, though the latter is more directly linked (Hooykaas, 1957, 1959, 1966; Cannon, 1960a and b; Rudwick , 1970, 1971, 1972; Bowler, 1976a; Ruse, 1979a; Hallam, 1983; Gould, 1987; Laudan, 1987).Other recent studies have reemphasized the significance of the uniformist-catastrophist debate in nineteenth-century geology (Greene, 1982; Rudwick, 1985; Secord, 1986).Geologists alone arrive at a view of the sequence of events in Earth's history, and they cannot agree on the rate of change.We can thus conclude that the emphasis on the Ryle-vs. Cataclysm debate represents an understanding of nineteenth-century geology in which we try to see this episode as the prologue to the Darwinian Revolution.

Many pugnacious writers of the post-Darwinian era tend to think that there must be an automatic antagonism between science and religion (White, 1896).Thus Ryle-Darwin was hailed as a model for insisting on scientific objectivity, while the cataclysmic interest in religion was regarded as an obstacle to the development of science.Gillispie (1951) pointed out that there was no sharp opposition between science and religion at that time, but a series of solutions to generally recognized religious problems related to science.Recent research has affirmed the cataclysmic scientific achievements.Religious concerns did not prevent them from being good geologists, except for some individuals, such as cataclysmists who tried to support the truth of the great flood story in the Bible.Certain developments in science did follow cataclysmic lines, notably the effort to divide the history of the Earth into discontinuous periods, and these are the geological periods we recognize today.Ryle's more "objective" approach is also associated with his rather unorthodox heavily religious thought.Both sides of the debate mingled science and religion, and each produced lasting value.

Many aspects of the early 19th century paved the way for the Darwinian revolution, yet cultural factors hindered some of the vision of naturalists of the period, leading to a need for new inspiration to clear their minds.The positive aspect of this period is the establishment of the basic institutional framework of science within which Darwin's doctrines were debated and which are the precursors of today's scientific organization.A scientific society was established and reformed along modern lines, and an important link was established between science and government (Cannon, 1978).France and Germany took the lead on this path, while Britain caught up by the mid-19th century, especially in science education.

Science of course became an integral part of Victorian culture, and as we study that period we find that geology textbooks sometimes outsold popular novels.Science had a powerful predominance at the time, but the predominance was not unlimited.Science was respected so long as it did not violate the religious beliefs and social customs of the time, and this limitation was more pronounced in England than in Continental Europe.But this does not mean that early Victorian scientists could not go beyond the Bible. For them, although their scientific research respected religion, they also recognized the need for sensory approval and needed to find a more reliable way. to align their work with their broader beliefs.Some subjects, however, remain off-limits, especially those that threaten to destabilize man as a spiritual reality.While many German naturalists had already acknowledged transformation as a way in which God's creative plan was manifested, Robert Chambers was compelled to write anonymously in his Traces of the History of Natural Creation (Chambers, 1842). The same idea is discussed in the book so as not to be persecuted.

Although geologists and naturalists of the early 19th century were able to map the development of life over the course of Earth's history, there were limits to their ability to explain why this process occurred.The basic problem is revealed by fossil evidence, which shows that life has undergone a progressive development from the simplest forms to man in the interconnected process of geological time.How are new groups introduced?Why did the new group develop organizational makeup in this way?Only the German naturalists maintained that it was due to a series of natural occurrences, at which time the idea was generally abandoned.It is obvious to most scientists that some supernatural motive must be invoked to explain the emergence of a new form of life.This does not mean, however, that the simple biblical view of miracles must be invoked, for at this point it is known that there are some general laws or tendencies governing the action of these agents.Under the influence of William Paley, many British naturalists proposed that the Creator had created progressively higher organisms to adapt to the improvement of the geophysical environment during geological time.Adaptation and divine mercy explain life's progress.German idealism encouraged another avenue of research, actually linking progress to the unfolding of a rationally ruled picture, with the aim of eventually producing the highest type in nature: the human being.In the English-speaking world, this view was propagated through the writings of Louis Agassiz, who combined it with the more traditional Christian belief in a divine creation.

Now that this tendency is acknowledged, it is possible to think that God has established some theological laws by which he manifests his plan.In Germany some naturalists have expressly suggested that the operation of this law is manifested in the discrete transformation of existing forms of life into higher forms.This view was also promoted by Chambers in Traces of the History of Natural Creation, which shows that, even in England, it was increasingly taken seriously by the 1850s.Ryle's view of the continuous change of nature makes this problem all the more salient, and it is for this reason that Ryle repudiates the idea of ​​progress outright, thereby enabling humans to clearly stand above a steady-state material universe.The one thing no one is willing to compromise on is that evolution is produced entirely by natural laws at work every day, because such a process is too easy to deviate from any form of theology.Let alone development, even transformation is acceptable as long as the underlying explanation is based on supernatural rather than natural causes, but detailed questions such as the origin of species are excluded from the scope of scientific investigation.

Georges Cuvier: Fossils and the History of Life If Lamarck's theory was the last Enlightenment guess about the origin of life, the work of his chief opponent was a new beginning for many ideas in the nineteenth century.Georges Cuvier disliked Lamarck, and he tried to use his position in science and in politics after the French Revolution to ensure that revolutionary ideas did not spread (Burkhardt, 1970).This dislike, however, was not due to religious prejudice, for Cuvier quite rationally recognized that his scientific findings differed from conversionism.He was impressed by the complex relationship of the inner parts of any living being, and he believed that such a delicate balance could not lead to change.Even when he reconstructed extinct types from fossil remains, Cuvier insisted that they belonged to extinct species that had nothing to do with evolution.

Cuvier first worked hard on the molluscs he had collected off the coast of Normandy, where he had taken refuge during the Terror (Coleman, 1964).When he moved to Paris, he settled down to study vertebrates at the Museum of Natural History, which the revolutionary government had established on the grounds of the old Royal Botanic Gardens at Buffon.In the museum, Cuvier consolidated his scientific and political stature, which he managed to preserve during Napoleon's rise and eventual defeat.Around 1800, he was very fond of the technique of comparative anatomy, describing and comparing the structures of the various animals he had obtained (Cuvier, 1805).Through these studies, he derived a new animal classification system (Cuvier, 1812a), as well as a new understanding of the animal kingdom and a discussion of useful scientific principles (Cuvier, 1817; Outram, 1986).

It was Buffon's colleague Daubenton and other naturalists of the late eighteenth century who created the new comparative anatomy.But Cuvier greatly emphasized the need for the study of the inner structure of each animal, so that he could recognize the delicate complexity of each animal, and the delicate interplay that must exist between all its parts , so as to maintain the biological function.He emphasized the "correlation between parts", thinking that it is the relationship between the organs necessary for the whole organism to produce life.Likewise, the "conditions of being" establish the necessary connections between the various parts of the animal and the animal's environment.Once the anatomist knows enough about the different animals, he can make a living, structurally desired relationship from the predictions.If a type has sharp claws, it must be a carnivore, and it must also have teeth suitable for capturing and biting its prey.Cuvier is said to have known these relationships to such an extent that he could reconstruct whole animals from a single bone and with the help of his imagination.

With good knowledge about the internal structure of animals, new insights into the interrelationships of animals can be generated that can be used for classification.Cuvier declared that when classifying, more attention should be paid to the traits that are essentially related to the susceptibility and motor ability of animals, rather than superficial characteristics, which is the "principle of trait subordination".On this principle, greater attention was required to the nervous system, and Cuvier recognized that those structures associated with the spine represented the fundamental traits of the unified Linnean system of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes.He thus created the branches or "types" of vertebrates as the basic divisions of the animal kingdom.At that time, invertebrates were of little concern to naturalists because they were considered a lower part of the animal kingdom, but Cuvier, in his knowledge of invertebrates, also Cuvier, used his method, and split it into three additional tissue types.The four types of vertebrates represent a basic scheme of classification upon which the structure of animals may be built.Invertebrates are inferior types to vertebrates not simply because they lack an endoskeleton; but because invertebrates are built on three different tissue types that can function without a skeleton. This division of animals removes the linear arrangement of animals inherited from the old chain of existence. .The naturalist may intuit that some animals have a higher form of organization than others, but this intuition cannot yet convincingly guide classification.Just because we are vertebrates does not make us assume that all invertebrates are lower types.A vertebrate isn't necessarily higher than a mollusk, it's just different, and the difference is so fundamental that it doesn't make sense to rank one animal above another.Cuvier was skeptical even of reordering the classes within the types of vertebrates, and he saw fish and mammals as merely different kinds of vertebrates adapted to different habits.It took several decades for most naturalists to accept this radical break with the old hierarchy, but its role in the rise of the theory of evolution was enormous.It was no longer possible to consider the linear progression of the animal kingdom; each type might have to be depicted as a different branch in the tree of development. Was it realized at the time that the basic resemblance of all species within a type meant that all species descended from a common ancestral type?Cuvier objected to this notion, to the possibility of one species becoming another.He viewed each species as a specific variation of a type, using the harmonious relationship of its unique body parts to suit its own particular way of life.The interaction of the body has a fine balance, and any significant change can disrupt the whole system of the body, causing the organism to lose its vitality.The ability of the environment to produce appreciable variation in a species is limited without causing any appreciable violation of the basic picture on which the species depends.It can be seen that Cuvier's view that species is fixed is based on his actual research on biological complexity, and he seldom expresses his belief in supernatural designers in his works.In Britain, however, the public felt that science should not shake religion, leading Cuvier's followers to use his views as definitive proof of the traditional view of design arguments.  Vertebrates have more than the backbone of organisms: Linnaeus divided into four classes, mammals, birds, reptiles, fish. (Amphibians were still considered a different class at this time, but in the 19th century they were usually included with reptiles.) Mollusks Organisms without a back bone, but some with shells: oysters, clams, etc. Arthropod Organisms having joints or skeletal segments: insects, spiders, worms, etc. Radiated animals Organisms with radial or annular plate tissue: starfish, sea urchins, etc. Figure 13. Cuvier's four animal tissue types Each of these four types represents a basic structure of animals, from which they can be divided into classes, orders, genus, and species in the Linnaean system.From Cuvier's "types" arose what are now called "phyla" and are still the most basic taxonomic unit.But biologists have recognized that there are more than four phyla in the animal kingdom.The division of vertebrates remains largely the same, except that they are now called "chordates" and include creatures with spinal cords but no back bones.The division of molluscs has not changed much either.But arthropods have been divided into several different phyla, and insects, spiders, etc. are all divided into separate phyla.Radioactive animals were once used as "reservoirs" where Cuvier put animals that could not be classified into other types, and have also been divided into different phyla (Winsor, 1976). More interestingly, Cuvier's objection to transformation stems from his work on paleontology, where he first proposed a compendium of life history based on solid evidence (Theunison, 1986).If all that is often found is an incomplete skeleton, then comparative anatomy techniques are well suited for reconstructing fossils.Based on what they know about living animals, anatomists are able to study fossil bones and imagine where they are located in complete organisms.From this, he can try to recreate the shape of the type.Cuvier soon had his own way of studying fossil bones and became a renowned authority on the field, and his corpus (Cuvier, 1812a) became the founding work of modern vertebrate paleontology. The discovery of fossil skeletons aroused widespread interest in the late 18th century (Greene, 1959a; Rudwick, 1972; Buffetaut, 1986).A recently extinct elephant-like but hairy creature, the mammoth, has been obtained from Siberia, whose bones have not really fossilized, and in some cases the ice has preserved the mammoth's flesh.Remains of a stronger elephant, the mastodon, were obtained from the Americas, with teeth resembling those of a hippopotamus.It was initially suggested that these species might still exist somewhere in the world, but as exploration expanded, the chances of finding them became less and less likely.Once Cuvier proved that these species were indeed the relics of organisms different from those known today, it was inevitable that extinctions would be admitted as a fact.Cuvier had shown that African and Indian elephants were so different that they should be separated into separate species.In this way, he classified the mammoth as a separate species within the genus Elephant.Mastodons are separated into a separate genus because of the large differences between mastodons and living elephants.The successful identification of these hypothetical reconstructions has fueled interest in the fossil and led to extensive research on more remains.However, the Wernerians have shown that, over a long period of time, rocks on Earth form layers in layers.Mammoths were collected from surface rubble layers that were relatively recent by geological standards and belonged to formations that were formed thousands of years ago; other fossils came from deeper (and therefore older) formations, forming the same formation as A picture of the sequence of extinct groups corresponding to the ages of rock formation.To demonstrate this relationship, Cuvier, in collaboration with Alexandre Brongniart, studied the stratigraphy of the Paris Basin (Cuvier and Brongniart, 1811; new edition, 1825).Brunnier used marine invertebrate fossils to establish different stages in the formation of stratigraphic sequences, which was one of the first cases of systematic use of fossils in stratigraphy.Cuvier, on the other hand, reconstructed the corresponding order of vertebrates.They identified a sequence through the Tertiary up to the Cretaceous, the upper limit of the much older Secondary.The older the formation, the more exotic and unimaginable the shape of the vertebrate fossils is to any type that still exists on Earth.Cuvier's belief that fossil animals are now extinct was based on the assumption that they could not (as Lamarck imagined) evolve into living organisms.It was confirmed that ancient species, like extant types, had a complex and balanced structure, which supported Cuvier's belief that each species functioned by virtue of the whole, which could not be destroyed by any apparent variation.In any case, the French expedition to Egypt brought back mummified animals of exactly the same type as the extant ones of previous years.The stability of species is thus proved, and the extinction of ancient forms a confirmed fact.It should be noted that modern evolutionists also accept the latter statement.Most fossil species did disappear, while the successful members of a few of them evolved into many later types.  Recent deposits: Mammoth (Elephas primigenius) from Siberia, Mastodon americanus from the Americas and other European species of the same genus. Tertiary strata: Palaeotherium, several species of the same genus. This mammal is not the same as today's mammals, but it seems to have some relationship with tapirs, rhinos and pigs. (Actually, this type of creature came from the older Tertiary deposits, and Ryle later named this period the Eocene.) Secondary strata: collected from Mososaurus in Meisterricht, Germany. (Located in the Cretaceous sediments of the Upper Second Period.) Figure 14. Examples of fossils described by Cuvier and their geological relationships In the example shown above, the most recent is at the top.Note that more recently extinct types, such as mammoths, are more like living creatures than older types, such as archaea.Almost all the fish and (larger) reptiles, such as mosasaurs, were excavated from the Second Period strata, so this geological period was later called the "Reptile Age". But why did ancient types disappear, and how were new types introduced to replace them?In his Discourse on the Revolution of the Earth's Surface, Cuvier discusses geological events that could have affected life on Earth (Cuvier, 1812a, Introduction; English translation, 1813; new edition, 1825).Studies of the Paris Basin have found that there has been a displacement from dry water to sea water, indicating that the positions of the corresponding land and sea have undergone dramatic changes.Cuvier was inclined to think that the transition from one state to another was brief because of the sudden breaks in fossil populations.Evidence of sudden changes was also found at that time in less ancient formations in Europe (later interpreted by geologists as belonging to the end of the most recent glacial period).In any case, the large-scale alternation of land and sea must have been caused by far more dramatic causes than we are now observing.In fact, Cuvier did not propose that these events were sudden, but he paved the way for the school of thought in geology that came to be known as catastrophism. Cuvier believed that the geological revolution was the cause of the extinction.The invasion of Europe by the oceans would bury all animals that lived there, except those that migrated.But how did later animals move in?One would easily conclude that Cuvier must have proposed it by a miraculous creation.However, he does not see the need to use new creation to explain the re-flooding of life in a particular area, because he believes that "new" animals may have lived in parts of the world that were not affected by the geological revolution, and migrated from there. To places where animal extinctions have occurred.For this reason, Cuvier refused to support the link between the recent geological revolution and the generalized deluge recorded in the Bible; he insisted only that there were regional upheavals.His theory is that, at some point earlier, there was a mass extinction in which living organisms co-existed around the world, and subsequent successive geological revolutions wiped out vast numbers of ancient types.Through extensive exploration, it was gradually discovered that there are no fossil remains of modern organisms anywhere in the world.Cuvier's theory of animal migration thus became unreasonable, and later geologists definitively concluded that, historically, new life types had been introduced at different times in Earth's history. The only gap Cuvier left for a super-superstitious explanation of nature was the beginning of the Tertiary Period, when he proposed that all mammals were introduced at the same time.Yet he remains stubbornly opposed to the idea of ​​transformation.Towards the end of his academic career, he took part in one last debate on this issue, with Is idore Geoffroy Saint Hilaire (1847; Bourdier, 1969; Appel, 1987) debate.For Gefroy, the unity of species agency within a type has ideal significance.This is the transcendental real relationship of the species itself, not the actual result of limited selection by nature when establishing the dynamic life type.This belief instead encouraged him to explore the possibility, indeed by transformation, of one organism evolving from a different organism of the same type.After studying some extinct reptiles, he turned to embryos in order to explain how these ancient creatures might have transformed into their modern forms, and even into birds and mammals (Geoffroy, 1833).Atmospheric changes may affect the development of embryos so that new organs develop.The offspring then take on a new shape, displaying a bizarre trait, but are able to survive and reproduce if their organs adapt to the new environment. (In modern parlance) This is evolution by mutation, not by gradual adaptation.Cuvier certainly rejected this view, just as he rejected Lamarck's conjecture.He proposed that a singular type could not be expected to have the harmoniously balanced structure necessary for survival, and therefore such a singular type could not be the basis of a new species. It has often been suggested that, under Cuvier's influence, the idea of ​​transformation failed to have real impact in the early nineteenth century.But we now know that he did not have absolute control over the French scientific community (Outram, 1984).Some bolder thinkers have followed Lamarck's line of thinking (Corsi, 1978).In Britain, even a few radicals supported Lamarckism so strongly that conservative social forces took active action against them (Desmond, 1984, 1987).At the time, materialism was considered by the public to be a threatening ideology, and although it was suppressed in the first decades of the 19th century, its attitudes and values ​​persisted and became more openly expressed in later evolutionary debates come out.Many Continental naturalists, taking a less radical standpoint, followed Gefroy in the belief that sudden transformations in individual growth could produce new varieties that fit the basic plan of nature (Temkin, 1959; Lovejoy, 1959a ). Gefroy also scored a triumph in his explanation of how types are unified in the animal kingdom.For Cuvier, the use of types to define taxa successfully solved the problems nature had in constructing viable life forms.This is not a magical unity, but a fact of the day: some basic structures are more easily adapted to the "conditions of existence" that result from internal equilibrium and external adaptation.On the contrary, for Gefroy, the unity of type has a higher meaning.The fact that many divergent types can be related by the main features in their structure is the representation of the basic regular picture in nature.The archetype can change in many ways to suit the environment, yet its features are clearly recognizable.Linked to idealism, this view became a powerful idea that inspired many naturalists in the mid-nineteenth century (Ospovat, 1981).This means that individuals in nature are not randomly assembled, and the morphology has a certain style. This view encourages scientists to explore the unity of groups based on true morphological similarity.One might therefore suggest that it was Gefroy, rather than Cuvier's notion of type, that inspired the morphology and taxonomy that contributed to Darwinism.The original idea of ​​unifying groups through a common internal form was accepted by Darwinists, but they did not explain this unity from the perspective of magical archetypes, but explained it as the result of common origin from a single ancestor. Cataclysm and Natural Theology in England At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, hydrogenesis became popular in England.Playfair's explanation of Hutton's work (Playfair, 1802) preserved the spirit of igneousism, but there were few supporters because igneousism lacked theological support (Gillispie, 1951).Werner's mineralogical techniques were used with great success, especially through the work of Robert Jameson (ie Jameson, 1804-08).As spiritual leader of the Werner Society in Edinburgh, Jameson even reduced the influence of Hutton's ideas in Hutton's home town.However, by the 1820s, geologists began to realize that there was too much evidence that the movement of the Earth's crust played a role in forming the surface we see.No one was ready to accept Hutton's homeostasis interpretation, so the principles of pyrogenicity were seeped in gradually without open debate.Even Jameson added notes to the English translation of Cuvier's Discourse on the Revolution of the Earth, suggesting that he was now also ready to admit that the motion of the earth was a factor in geological change.In London, the Geological Society was founded in 1807, apparently to encourage a spirit of empirical exploration, which might avoid being involved in the fierce hydrogenesis-pyreneism dispute.However, under the auspices of this society, a new group of geologists arose (Laudan, 1977) who worked to develop a philosophy of Earth's history that eventually came to be known as "catastrophism." At this stage, most geologists simply cannot believe that a common earthquake can lift an entire mountain ridge, even if it takes a long time.Nor can they accept the idea that a river can gradually erode a huge valley.Cataclysms therefore postulate that large-scale Earth motions took place in the past to a degree that we are not aware of today.These drastic changes can lift mountains in short periods of time, creating huge waves that can cause massive erosion.There is solid evidence that a great flood once swept across Britain.In some places there are still some huge boulders, which are different from the local stones.Apparently the waves pushed the stones away from where they were, along the surface, to where they are now.By the 1840s, an explanation based on extensive glaciers at the end of the last ice age did indeed emerge.In the meantime, someone put forward the "flood theory", which assumes that a huge flood occurred in the not-too-distant past. This view is a more reasonable explanation for this strange large garden stone.Since this view is not a purely religious conjecture, its defense and attacks are confined to the scientific community (Page, 1969).The danger is that this idea may be too easily associated with the biblical Flood by those determined to subordinate science to religion."Theological geology" was relatively popular in England at the time, although its ardent supporters were not professional geologists.Many clergymen do not think the Flood theory is too far off the mark; they intend to bring the whole situation back to the point where people can accept the Genesis account as plausible. British geologists, like their Continental counterparts, intended to establish an autonomous science.But they had to curtail their scientific interests lest their science challenge religion.The fact that some geologists have made limited concessions to the views in Genesis has led some historians to mistake Cataclysm for nothing more than a movement in theological geology.How short-sighted historians are when we look at the purely scientific explanation for the reality of the Flood (Rupke, 1983) offered by the funny and eccentric Oxford geology teacher William Buckland (Rupke, 1983).At the opening ceremony of his inauguration, Buckland delivered a speech (Buckland, 1820), opposing the accusation of geology, arguing that geology did not attempt to shake religion.Yet it was only in limited areas that his theology influenced his scientific work.Buckland doesn't want to prove that the Bible's creation story is true, but that geology proves that the flood mentioned in Noah's story did happen.He found the best evidence in support of his position to be found in what he had obtained in Yorkshire, where the workmen had discovered a cavern containing a great deal of silt, which had dried; The living animals in Britain are different.Buckland said the cave was once a den of coyotes, and many prey were dragged into the cave and eaten.In his book Remains of the Flood (Buckland, 1823), he argues that the Great Flood ended coyotes in England when silt filled coyote dens and local environmental conditions became more hospitable to living creatures survival.Similar caves have been found in other parts of the world, making it possible to think that the entire Earth was probably once covered with water, as stated in the Bible. Even if one accepted the Flood interpretation of these caves, must the whole world be thought to have undergone upheavals?Cuvier had objected to this view, and others soon discovered that Buckland was unscientifically cautious and indulged religious inclinations in this matter.By the end of the 1820s, it was generally recognized that evidence from different parts of the world could not be linked in one event.The extreme cataclysmic flood view was rejected, and proponents of this theory began to downplay the degree of cataclysm they referred to.The decline of the Flood theory clearly demonstrates the dangers of associating science with biblical stories too closely.If future research shows that the connection is absurd, it may be more costly for religion to have the ensuing debate than it would have been if the connection had never been attempted. Even in the case of the flood, some serious geologists don't bother to suggest that magical forces were ever at work.所有人都深信地球的历史是由非凡的上帝决定的，万能的上帝能够通过运用他在宇宙中建立的法则来保证达到他的目的（Hooykaas，1959）。到了1830年，剧变论有了一个比较自恰的方向论框架，其中利用地球冷却理论对于地质作用的逐渐降低作出了科学的解释（Rudwic k，1971）。如果过去的地球比起今天的地球来，地球的中心更热，固体地壳更薄的话，那么我们就应该认为过去地球运动的规模要比今天的地震规模更大。在法国，埃里·德·博蒙特提出了一个剧变论的造山理论，按照这个理论，随着地球的变冷，地壳会出现“皱褶”。这个思想为剧变论奠定了一个有说服力的概念基础，，从而受到了广泛的欢迎。甚至布克兰最终也接受了这种地球冷却的解释，而且承认他过去高估了最近一次大洪水的规模（Buckla nd，1836）。 根据这种理论框架，剧变论者继续完成了这个世纪中的一些非常有意义的工作。在19世纪30年代，大致搞清楚了我们今天所了解的地质形成顺序。居维叶和布隆尼亚尔已经确定了第三纪的地层，但是这时更古老的第二系和过渡系地层却被分成了单独的地层，我们今天仍使用当时确定的名称。每一地层代表了一种复杂的、相互之间本质上相似的岩层，一般说来，地层的上下界限比较容易区分。根据维尔纳学派建立的地层学原理，有人提出，每一地层是在地球历史的特定时期形成的，越深的地层越古老。地质学家通过确立岩层顺序，刻画了地球的历史发展图景。 这时，化石已经成为确定地层顺序的关键依据。维尔纳学派建立了地层学原理，但是却提出根据地层中矿物质的特征就可以确立地层的顺序。这时已经认识到，同样类型的岩石可能是在地球历史的不同时期形成的。只有通过化石才能得到地层顺序的清晰线索，因为每一个时期一定生活着独特的生物群体。对这种新技术的最有力倡导者是地质学的“英国”学派。一般认为，这个学派是由“英国地质学之父”威廉·史密斯创建的，他在绘制英国地质图时（Smith，1815）创立了这项技术（Eyles，1969）。史密斯是渠道建设者，他开始研究化石纯粹是出于实用目的，但是他的追随者却是绅士－科学家，他们对于经济地质学不感兴趣（Porter，1973，1977）。实际上，之所以援引史密斯的名字，或许是因为阻止有人宣称这项新的地层学的真正先驱是法国人。最近的研究强调了关于地质动力学争论的程度，均一论者和剧变论者都参与了这场争论，而绘制地层图的工作却与这场争论无涉（Rudwick，1985；Secord，1986）。 最不清楚的是最古老的岩石，因为由于地球的运动，这些岩石已经发生了很大的变化。在英国，可以在威尔士找到这样的岩石样本，发现这种岩石的故事是地质学历史上的一个著名的插曲。两个参与者都是剧变论者，他们把岩石之间的区别看成是在这种岩石形成期间环境条件突然变化的证据。他们俩人差别很大：亚当·塞治威克虽然对地质学一窍不通，但是却被选为剑桥的地质学教授，而路德里克·英培·默奇逊原先是个军人，他对地质学感兴趣是因为要取代猎狐的爱好（Clark and Hughes，1890；Geikie，1875，1879）。他们俩人都掌握他们所研究领域中的技术，并且在19世纪30年代在威尔士应用了这项技术，默奇逊研究的是威尔士南部的古来岩石，而塞治威克研究的则是威尔士北部更古老的岩石，他们研究了志留纪和寒武纪（Murchison，1839）。虽然他们曾经因为过渡地层的问题发生了争吵，但是这时确立了更古老的含有化石的岩石，为此没有发生争论（Secord，1986）。 人们终于开始搞清楚了地壳中散乱的部分，这样也就搞清楚了地球的历史。许多人赞同塞治威克和默奇逊，是因为新的图景证实了剧变论－方向论的地球发展观。地层之间的突然简单似乎表明，这些岩石形成时的环境条件发生过同样突然的变化。更值得关注的，是在联系地层中的化石群体的变化。在史密斯的技术中用到的化石一般是无脊椎动物的化石，然而，即使从无脊椎动物化石中也可以发现随着时间的明显变化。更令人惊奇的则是脊椎动物的发展。随着运用居维叶的方法来重建不断增多的化石生物，可以明确地证明稳态的地球历史观是错的。当时已经有了明确的证据表明，在连续的地质时期中，生命的历史经历了系统的发展。 居维叶已经知道，在第三纪地层下几乎没有哺乳动物的遗迹，但是这时已经清楚，在第二代有大量奇异的爬行动物。1824年，布克兰描述了所知道的第一种恐龙，一种巨大的食肉类型，他称之为斑龙（Megalosaurus）。实际上，“恐龙”这个词是著名解剖学家理查德·欧文与1841年发明的，自那时起，在公众心里这些动物就成了史前自然界中奇异生物的象征（Swinton，1970；Colbert，1971；Delair and Sarjeant，1975；Desmond，1976，1979，1982）。然而，在更低的地层，即使爬行动物也很缺乏，唯一的脊椎动物类型是奇特的甲壳鱼（Miller，1841）。在整个地层顺序的更底层，塞治威克研究的寒武纪，甚至连鱼都没有。在这一远古时期，惟有像三叶虫那样的无脊椎动物。这样就清楚了地球上生命历史的大致轮廓。开始时是无脊椎动物时代，接下来就是鱼、爬行动物的相继引入，最后出现了哺乳动物。 尽管居维叶不愿意接受对生物按照阶层体系分类，但是多数博物学家都相信创世的顺序是进步式的，向着更高的生命类型攀升。开始时是低等的无脊椎动物，随后是不断高等的组织类型，沿着脊椎动物纲的阶层体系，直至出现哺乳动物。当然人是最高等的生命类型，人既有发达的体制结构，又有一种新的精神特征。人类化石的缺乏似乎更突出地表明这种最高等的创造物是最近才产生出来的。然而，上帝创造出直至人类出现的整个生物群体顺序的目的是什么？埃斯利（Eiseley，1958）论述过剧变论者的“先验、以人为中心的进步论”，但是有人会提出，存在过两种不同的对化石序列的解释（Bowler，1976a）。唯心论者实际上会将化石序列的进步看作先验计划的展示，按照这种计划，人位于创世的顶端。但是英国的剧变论者一般并不是唯心论者；他们对国内的功利主义传统更熟悉，而且能够将功利主义运用到他们自己的进步解释中。 威廉·佩利的经典著作《自然神学》（1802）再次重申了早先雷所提出的从功利主义证明设计的论据的观点（Edmund Paley，1825；Le Mahieu，1976）。动物的每一部分对于它的生命模式来说是有用的，而这种结构对功能的普遍适应证明了上帝的智慧和仁慈，证明了上帝关怀他所创造的生物。就如同从手表精致的结构中可以看出钟表匠的灵巧一样，从生物令人叹为观止的复杂中可以看出生物设计者的力量。根据这种传统，每一种适应都被认为是独特的，而且这种论点得到大量例子的有力佐证。这种运动在19世纪30年代出版的“布里吉沃特论集”中达到了顶点，这是由8部著作组成的系列，是受布里吉沃特伯爵的委托写成的，为的是证明“上帝在创世工作中的力量、智慧和善良。”一些著名的科学家参加了这个系列的撰写，但是有的写的很成功，有的则不然。问题是这种无休止的列举适应的做法无法让人产生神是仁慈的感觉，倒是令读者非常厌烦。 对于古生物学家来说，采用设计的论据很容易来说明他们发现的化石。居维叶的技术完全强调整个生物适应其生活方式。当将他的技术运用到化石物种的重建时，可以自动揭示出每一种类型都自动地适应了它所生活的环境条件。其结果可能被用作设计的证据，佩利就是从生物中轻易地找到了一些例子。甚至灭绝也可以解释成仁慈地擦拭黑板，从而留下了空缺，这样才有可能创造出为适应另一个新纪元不同的环境条件而设计的新一类物种。在反对居维叶的迁移理论中，后来的剧变论者并不在意面对一系列新的创世，每一次创世都适应了以后的地球历史时期。 图15.地质形成顺序 这个图表显示了19世纪中期和今天所确定的形成地层序列。这个地层序列对应于地质时间，最古老的在底下。在任何一个地区都没有发现完整的地层序列，序列的确定所根据的是在不同地区所作观察基础上的推测。生命历史的三大时期——古生代，中生代和新生代——是由约翰·菲利普斯根据无脊椎动物的化石确立的（Philips，1841）。在19世纪中期，通常对时间尚未作出估算，多数剧变论者认为［地球存在的］时间比我们今天认为的要短，而且还不是短几千年。今天人们认为第三系开始于7千万年前，古生代开始于5亿年前（取自Bowler，1976a）。 为什么相继的创世中形状的变化一进步的顺序从无脊椎动物直至变成了哺乳动物？一旦确立了剧变的方向论解释，就可以解答这个问题了，因为适应的要求所确定的物理环境的方向性变化必定使地球上的生物发生相应的变化。假如更早的时期只适合低等的生命类型，那么上帝创造的就只有低等生物。随着环境的改善，他会创造出不断高等的类型，最后是人类及其他现存的适应这个世界的生物。布克兰写作《布里吉沃特论集》中有关地质学的书籍时（Buckland，1836）提出，最早的鱼类身上的甲壳是为了抵御古海洋的高温。在法国，阿道夫·布隆尼亚尔（Brongniart，1828a）根据石炭纪的植物化石提出，那时整个地球为热带气候。他在同一年发表的文章中（Brongniart，1828b）指出，随着二氧化碳固定在煤和泥煤中，大气重的二氧化碳逐渐减少。这或许能够解释后来高等动物的产生，因为以后的空气比较纯净，足以适宜高等动物生存。这种思想说明方向论者的研究已经走向成熟，而且对于英国博物学家来说，这样的趋势正是他们想表示的上帝在地球历史中的控制作用。 而进步则是神的仁慈的象征，进步确保了生物对稳定改善的环境条件的适应。作为基督徒，英国博物学家相信宇宙的最终目的是为人类的原罪和救赎梦想提供一个舞台。上帝一定确保了地球物理环境发展的最后产物是适于人类生存的环境。早期生物类群的创造只不过是为了让我们见识一下造物主的仁慈，并不是为了确证我们在特创计划中位于优越的地位。人的独特性是由其精神特征决定的，对于这一点仅仅根据生物的进步是不能预见的。 剧变论者提出了符合佩利自然神学的、理性的生命历史发展的解释。他们的解释遗留了一个问题：上帝究竟如何在地球历史的适当时期引入新的生命类型？最简单的回答是通过奇迹，剧变论者的特创论不一定保证会想到就是变异（Cannon，1960b，1961a；Ruse，1975d；Gillespie，1979）。新物种的出现当然不是由于日常自然法则的作用。而且，创世活动是不连续的，只发生在每一个地质时期的开始。然而“创世”并不一定就是指严格的《圣经》意义上的奇迹，剧变论者不可能把造物主刻画成白头发老头，急匆匆地在世界各地忙碌，用尘土制造物种。通过生命的进步过程可以发现，创世是一个系统过程，甚至谈论“创世的法则”也是合情合理的；但是由于这些法则中必定含有上帝的智慧，因而不适于科学地分析这些法则。这个过程的细节太模糊了，除非提出生物是从原先存在的类型逐渐转变过来的。 生物学中的唯心论 英国的剧变论者确立了发展的地球历史观，并且通过提出随着环境条件的改善，出现了更高等的类型，从而把发展的地球历史观与生命的进步联系了起来。但是已经出现了另一种哲学，提出了完全不同的、发展的世界观，而且不是目的论的观点。这就是19世纪早期德国唯心主义哲学，它的基础是假设物质宇宙是神的精神的展示。这种哲学有助于人们相信自然事物的表面多样性背后隐藏着理性特创计划的统一性。这种哲学的一些极端倡导者直言不讳地提出了一种德国自然哲学的神秘猜想：自然在努力产生像人这样完美的类型（Gode von Aesch，1941；Lenoir，1978）。洛伦兹·奥肯（Oken，英译本，1847）是这一哲学最有影响的代言人。那些有节制的唯心主义者不赞成他的极端观点，他们本着实在的研究道路，探讨生物界的内在统一性。热弗鲁瓦·圣提莱尔先验的解剖学也是这种研究道路的一种体现，而在德国，对目的论和机械论的综合，则支持了生物学中同样雄心勃勃的研究纲领（Lenoir ，1982）。在英国，也出现了一代“哲学博物学家”，他们致力于探讨生物多样性中间所蕴涵的一种理性的规则（Rehbock，1983）。在英国，唯心主义与本国的自然神学传统结合了起来，产生出一种新的关于设计的论据（Bowler，1977a；Ospovat，1978，1981）。 其中，唯心主义哲学最重要的运用就是创立了一种极致的地球上生命历史的发展观。这里，创世的理性计划被赋予一个维度，即是随着时间发展的：特创计划按照一个有目标的方式展示出来，直至一个预定的目的。通过这种模型可以解释为什么19世纪早期的生物学家对胚胎学很着迷；人们认为个体生物的发展是一个完美的例子，说明了自然界中具有方向性的力量。因为胚胎的结构变得不断复杂，所以将胚胎发育过程与阶层体现的分类观起来，并产生出“平行律”，似乎是自然的。有人认为，人类的胚胎发育经历了自然等级的排列，开始是无脊椎动物，然后上升到鱼、爬行动物的层次，最后是哺乳动物（Russell，1916；Mey er，1935，1939，1956；Temkin，1950；Oppenheimer，1967；Gould，1977b）。人类的发展就这样与整个动物界联系了起来。 不久，平行律又与地球上生命的历史联系了起来，从而为“重演论”奠定了基础。按照重演论，人类胚胎经历的动物纲类型被视为是生命在地质时间所经历的历史发展的重复。这成了自然计划普遍性的象征，而且再次证明了人类的出现是自然计划的中心目的。C·F·基尔梅耶（Coleman，1973）暗示过有这种可能，在约翰·弗里德里克·梅克尔1821的著作中，极大地发展了这个理论。最初的时候，重演论只是一种猜想，但是当化石记录证实了动物纲的相继进步式出现时，重演论的思想不可避免地产生了重大的影响。因此这种唯心主义的观点希望广泛传播生物发展的概念，尽管这种概念与达尔文主义的哲学框架有很大的不同。 倡导这种对化石进步作唯心主义解释的领袖是瑞士博物学家路易斯·阿加西（ECAgassiz，1885；Marcou，1896；Lurie，1960）。阿加西早期是在德国受的教育，他从奥肯那里汲取了唯心主义的自然哲学。他曾经在巴黎居住过短暂的时间，并接受过居维叶的指导，居维叶教诲他要认识到将广泛的猜想与仔细的观察结合起来的必要性，在居维叶的引导下，他研究了鱼类化石（1833-43），并因此研究而出名。1846年，阿加西到美国旅行，并接受挽留成为哈佛大学的动物学教授。他后来成了美国博物学泰斗，帮助将唯心主义的研究途径传入到英语世界。 阿加西相信，只有将从鱼类到哺乳动物的化石进步与胚胎发育过程比较起来看，才能发现化石进步的真正意义。他已经在依格纳修·多林格尔的指导下研究过胚胎学，而且他终生都对胚胎发育过程着迷。当时，人们认为人类胚胎的发育是定向的过程，从中可以看出生物经历了不同等级的动物纲阶段，直至最终完美。沿着同样预定的路径，低等动物只经历了很少的阶段。博物学家从胚胎发育的这种过程中找到了理解化石记录中同样形态顺序的线索。  从地球的历史中可以看出上帝的作用。地球的历史告诉了我们创世的目的和终点是人类。从最早的有组织物质的出现时起，上帝的作用就开始在自然界中得到体现；整个系列中每一次重要生物的出现，都是通向生物发展预定目的的一个阶段。（Agassiz，1842，p.399） 进步不是对环境条件变化的回应，不是适应上帝更高超的智慧。进步是人类在世界占据独特地位的先验标志，进步向人类表面他是一个精心预定和结构和谐的特创计划中的最终目的。 在阿加西的最后论著中，如1857年出版的《论分类》（Agassiz，1962年版），他明确地接受了平行律，但是他的信念——脊椎动物的历史展示了向着人的发展计划——绝没有发生过动摇。当然没有人可以将所有物种排列成一个线性的序列，但是存在〖HTSS 〗着一个向着人类出现的、将动物纲的等级序列连接起来的主线。生命历史的旁支可以被视为是主要脊椎动物类型的变异，是主线的修饰，就像作曲家用一些其他音调丰富主旋律一样。在阿加西看来，造物主是理性的，而且是很有艺术性的，他所关注的是整个自然计划的结构，而不是个别物种对环境的适应。 阿加西通过将生物的发展图景解释为神的特创计划，提出了一种英语世界所接受的对进步的唯心论解释。修·米勒的《旧红沙石》（Miller，1841）在公众中普及了这种思想。然而，阿加西和米勒都相信，通过不连续的超自然起源阶段，生命发生了进步。他们相信，相继出现的动物类群是由于地质上的剧变而灭绝的。阿加西甚至加了一种地质剧变——冰期（Agassiz，英译本，1967）。阿加西认为，物种是绝对固定不变的，只能有物种的神奇起源。迈尔（Mayr，1959a）指出，类型学物种观的真正根源是与唯心主义哲学的联系。按照这种唯心主义的解释，个体生物仅仅是理念类型的物质表现，理念类型代表了物种的本质。自然变异不能使理念类型发生改变，因此只有造物主的意愿才是新的特定类型的唯一源泉。其他唯心论者也能接受不连续或突然的转变观，而且温泽（Winsor，1979）指出，阿加西之所以反对进化论是受到对物种固定不变观察的影响，加上他相信每一个分类层次形成了可供智力分析的一个明确阶元，这是博物学家在研究自然时不得不牢记在心的。这种自然阶元与造物主心里想的层次相平行，而且是固定永恒的。在阿加西自然发展观形成过程中，唯心主义起到了更重要的作用，它比起物种的类型学思想来，是更本质的思想。 阿加西在坚持每一种新的动物纲的出现代表着迈向一个全新世界的阶段中，引入了更深层次的生命进步不连续观点。按照这种观点，在原先占主导地位的动物纲的最后成员，与新的动物纲中最早出现成员之间，不存在相互连续的关系，只有在每一个动物纲中，才能发现连续的图景。这就证实了需要援引超自然的创造来解释每一个新的动物纲的起源。然而，事实上在每一个动物纲中所能看到的物种联系趋势，可能很容易被视为类似进化的连续发展。这是唯心主义发展观中的一个著名的悖论。虽然阿加西作了很多努力来强调不连续性和非进化的生命计划如何展示，但是生命计划连续性的事实有助于人们相信这种计划可能是逐渐展示的。假如能够想到这样一种连续性的发展是由于预定的一种类型向另一种类型的转变，那么就会形成一种进化论。尽管这种解释与达尔文主义相去甚远，但是它在普及基本的连续性发展思想方面却起到了关键作用。 罗伯特·钱伯斯在《自然创造史的痕迹》（Chambers，1844）一书中就扩展了这种唯心主义的自然哲学，虽然这部引起很大争议的书帮助传播了转变的思想，但是书中只不过提出了存在神的计划的解释，认为是神控制着转变的整个过程。钱伯斯采用了平行律，认为生命的进步本质上是通向人的线性发展。甚至阿加西也认为这样看不太合适，因为每一个动物纲中发展出来的分支显然并不一定会通向下一个更高的类型。事实上，这时，线性发展观的整个基础开始坍塌了，从而使人们更加注重分支发展的思想。在这场革命中，一种更加成熟的唯心主义自然观发挥了重要的作用，这种唯心主义以微妙的但是重要的方式为进化论的发展作出了贡献。 .从表面上看，这种新的分支发展的思想与达尔文提出的观点相似，而且这种有利于这种思想的证据后来也被达尔文主义所利用。然而，对于唯心主义者来说，他们所强调的发展的复杂过程仍然被视为神的计划缓慢展示的一个部分。 这种新方向的第一步发生在胚胎学中，卡尔·恩斯特·冯·贝尔在他的《动物发生史》（von Baer，1828；英译本见Henfrey and Huxley，1853）第五条注释中抨击了平行律。冯·贝尔坚持认为，在奥肯、梅克尔及其他人通过与人的发育进行类比所作的统一自然的努力中，他们夸大了人类胚胎的早期阶段与低等动物纲成体阶段的相似性。哺乳动物的胚胎与任何低等动物的成体之间，并不存在真正的相似，人类的胚胎并没有经历先是鱼类再是爬行动物的阶段。真正的情况是，对于博物学家来说，很难区分人和（比如）爬行动物胚胎发育的早期阶段，然而这只是类似爬行动物的胚胎，而不是爬行动物的成体，与原先声称的人类胚胎经历了爬行动物阶段更是相去甚远。人类胚胎的早期胚胎分化得并不充分，无法辨认出成体动物纲的特征。在动物的胚胎发育的后期，它们特征才会表现出来，应该认为动物的胚胎的发育路径是不同的。只是在人类胚胎发育比较晚的时期，才表现出与其他哺乳动物物种截然不同的特征。 在冯·贝尔看来，发育是一个特化的过程，并不是沿着线性等级向人的上升过程。任何物种的胚胎在开始时都是简单的，结构没有特化，然后通过增加特化器官，不断达到更高程度的复杂性，最终达到了物种的成体状态。这就是为什么不同的类型胚胎早期相似而它们在形成各自的成体特征时不一定经历同等程度特化的原因。冯·贝尔已经表明，不可能通过把动物视为单一进步计划的展示来同一生物。自然界远比平行律所揭示的更复杂，虽然这并不意味着整个自然界不是受更复杂的图景控制的。存在着定向的驱动力使胚胎向着其最终目标发育，但是每一个物种的目标并不一样，在了解自然的计划时必须考虑到这一点。