ESS 408/508
Great Geological Issues
J. Bourgeois
“Week 2” – Wed 3 Oct – Mon 8 Oct
[Wed] Early "geology"
Geology in antiquity
Cosmogonies part 1 ("non-theistic")
G. Bruno (1548-1600)
R. Descartes (1596-1650) (Newton's "response")
G. Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716) (publ. 1749)
B. de Maillet (1656-1738) (publ. 1748)
G.L. Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788)
P.S. Laplace (1749-1827) nebular hypothesis
(postscript--Chamberlain & Moulton, c. 1900; planetesimal hypothesis)
Early "Baconians" -- handout
[Fri] Geology with reference to natural theology
Cosmogonies part 2 ("theistic")
T. Burnet (c. 1635-1715) -- Baconian compromise
W. Whiston (1667-1752)
J. Woodward (1667-1728)
A.-L. Moro (1687-1740)
Natural theology
John Ray (1628-1705) (1693)
William Paley (1802)
Bridgewater treatises
"Baconian compromise in jeopardy"
[Mon] Discussion of Buckland, William, 1836. Geology and mineralogy… with reference to
natural theology. London: Wm. Pickering. Ch. 2: Consistency of geological discoveries with
sacred history, p. 8-33. (RP; also read background—front matter, Bridgewater Treatises)
Week 2 reading in reading packet (in addition to Buckland)
Faul, H. and Faul, C., 1983. It began with a stone. NY: Wiley.
Ch. 1 (Antiquity) and Ch. 2 (Middle Ages), p. 1-21.
Mather, K.F. and Mason, S.L., 1939, 1967. A sourcebook in geology,
1400-1900. MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
excerpts from:
Agricola (p. 6-11) scan for medieval ideas
Hooke (28-32) and Steno (33-44) --scan both Hooke & Steno
for flavor of early Baconian "geology"
Descartes (14-16), Kircher (17-19), Buffon (65-73)
--examples of cosmogonies
ESS 408/508
Geological Issues
J. Bourgeois
Some early “Baconian” natural philosophers in “geology”
(Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
N. Steno (1631-1687)
Fossils, stratification, developed an earth “history,” principles of stratigraphy
R. Hooke (1635-1703)
Significance of fossils, sediments
J. Guettard (1715-1786)
Mapping, volcanoes,…
N. Desmarest (1725-1815)
Answered contest, were France & England ever joined? (after Buffon, 1749)
Studies of volcanoes
“travelers”
Pierre Simon Pallas (1741-1811)
Survey of Russia (1768-1774)
Horace Benedict de Saussure (1740-1799)
Voyages dans les Alpes (1779- )
“stratigraphers” (see also Ch. 3 of Hallam) (also, Werner, as in Hallam Ch. 1 & 3)
N. Steno (see above)
John Strachey (1671-1743)
Noted sequence in SW England, enumerated series Coal to Chalk, noted unconformities
Giovanni Arduino (1713-1795)
Developed 3-fold stratigraphic classification for rocks; Primary, Secondary, Tertiary
Also much mining geology
J. G. Lehmann (d. 1767)
Also developed a(n originally 3-fold) stratigraphic classification for rocks
G.C. Fuchsel (1722-1773)
Developed concept of a formation
Anton Lavoisier (1735-1784 guillotine)
Concept of transgression, facies change, shallow- and deep- water facies
Torbjorn Bergmann (1735-1784)
Chemist, mineralogist
Physical Description of the Earth (1766)
Summarized work of more than 40 others
Defined a body of “geological” knowledge, widely translated
Influenced Hutton and Werner
Questions for thought & discussion, Buckland
ESS 408/508 JBourgeois
Note: “Mosaic” (as used by Buckland and others) refers to the first five books of the Bible (‘books
of Moses”), also called the “Pentateuch” and the “Torah.” In the excerpt of Buckland you are
reading, he discusses primarily topics from the creation story, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2
(copied in your reading packet; compare the two versions). Other “Mosaic” topics include Noah’s
flood, as well as the genealogy of Israel, which some scholars used to calculate time in years back to
Adam and Eve.
Also note that the Genesis story is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam; all three
trace their lineage back to Abraham in Genesis.
Questions:
For what purpose is Buckland writing?
Given a choice between the Mosaic account, and apparently conflicting evidence in the rocks, what
does Buckland recommend?
Buckland reviews various ways to deal with the discrepancy between the calculated time of creation
in Genesis 1-2 (about 6000 years ago, e.g., 4004 B.C. in Ussher’s chronology) and geological
evidence for Earth’s antiquity
What are a couple ways Buckland discusses to resolve this conflict, without throwing out the
Genesis story completely?
What indications does Buckland give of how old he thinks the Earth is? Does he attempt to
quantify the age of the Earth?
What are some other apparent discrepancies between the Mosaic account and geologic (or other)
evidence/observations, discussed by Buckland?
These discrepancies fall into at least three categories:
Omission
Chronology of creation (order of events)
Earth’s antiquity
Find at least one example of each. Do you find other categories?
Before Buckland wrote his Bridgwater Treatise, he had written a treatise (Reliquiae Diluvianae) on
evidence for “the flood” (as in Noah’s flood). Does he defend or refute that prior work in the
excerpt from the Bridgwater treatise?
Do you get the sense that Buckland is straining to write this chapter, that is, does he really believe
what he is writing, is he trying to convince himself, or is he writing to satisfy the Earl of
Bridgwater?
Have you read or heard any modern-day creationists? If so, how would you compare them to
Buckland? What is the difference between “scientific creationism” and “intelligent design”?