Aristotle thought the earth had existed eternally. Roman poet Lucretius,
intellectual heir to the Greek atomists, believed its formation must
have been relatively recent, given that there were no records going back
beyond the Trojan War. The Talmudic rabbis, Martin Luther and others
used the biblical account to extrapolate back from known history and
came up with rather similar estimates for when the earth came into
being. The most famous came in 1654, when Archbishop James Ussher of
Ireland offered the date of 4004 B.C.
Within decades observation began overtaking such thinking. In the 1660s
Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal
strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must
have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata
contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after,
suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology
that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.” The 18th century
saw the spread of canal building, which led to the discovery of strata
correlated over great distances, and James Hutton’s recognition that
unconformities between successive layers implied that deposition had
been interrupted by enormously long periods of tilt and erosion. By 1788
Hutton had formulated a theory of cyclic deposition and uplift, with
the earth indefinitely old, showing “no vestige of a beginning—no
prospect of an end.” Hutton considered the present to be the key to the
past, with geologic processes driven by the same forces as those we can
see at work today. This position came to be known as uniformitarianism,
but within it we must distinguish between uniformity of natural law
(which nearly all of us would accept) and the increasingly questionable
assumptions of uniformity of process, uniformity of rate and uniformity
of outcome.
That is the background to the intellectual drama being played out in
this series of papers. It is a drama consisting of a prologue and three
acts, complex characters, and no clear heroes or villains. We, of
course, know the final outcome, but we should not let that influence our
appreciation of the story as it unfolds. Even less should we let that
knowledge influence our judgment of the players, acting as they did in
their own time, constrained by the concepts and data then available.
One outstanding feature of this drama is the role played by those who
themselves were not, or not exclusively, geologists. Most notable is
William Thomson, ennobled to become Lord Kelvin in 1892, whose theories
make up an entire section of this collection. He was one of the dominant
physicists of his time, the Age of Steam. His achievements ran from
helping formulate the laws of thermodynamics to advising on the first
transatlantic telegraph cable. Harlow Shapley, who wrote an article in
1919 on the subject, was an astronomer, responsible for the detection of
the redshift in distant nebulae and hence, indirectly, for our present
concept of an expanding universe. Florian Cajori, author of the 1908
article “The Age of the Sun and the Earth,” was a historian of science
and, especially, of mathematics, and Ray Lankester, whom he quotes, was a
zoologist. H. N. Russell, author of the 1921 article on radioactive
dating, was familiar to me for his part in developing the
Hetzsprung-Russell diagram for stars, but I was surprised to discover
that he was also the Russell of Russell-Saunders coupling, important in
atomic structure theory. H. S. Shelton was a philosopher of science,
critical (as shown in his contribution, the 1915 article “Sea-Salt and
Geologic Time”) of loose thinking and a defender of evolution in
debates.
The prologue to the drama is the mid-19th century recognition of the
relation between heat and other kinds of energy (see the 1857 article
“Source of the Sun’s Heat”). The first act consists in a direct attack,
led by Lord Kelvin, on the extreme uniformitarianism of those such as
Charles Lyell, who regarded the earth as indefinitely old and who, with
great foresight (or great naivety, depending on your point of view: see
the third installment of the 1900 “The Age of the Earth” article by W.
J. Sollas), assumed that physical processes would eventually be
discovered to power the great engine of erosion and uplift.
The second act of the drama sees a prolonged attempt by a new generation
of geologists to estimate the age of the earth from observational
evidence, to come up with an answer that would satisfy the demands of
newly dominant evolutionary thinking, and to reconcile this answer with
the constraints imposed by thermodynamics. The third act sees the entry
of a newly discovered set of physical laws—those governing
radioactivity. Radioactivity offered not only a resolution to the puzzle
of the earth’s energy supply but also a chronology independent of
questionable geologic assumptions and a depth of time more than adequate
for the processes of evolution.
Loading...
CodeNirvana