Between Huttons day and Lyells there arose a new geological controversy, which largely superseded, but is often confused with, the old NeptunianPlutonian dispute. The new battle became an argument between catastrophism and uniformitarianismunattractive terms for an important and very long-running dispute. Catastrophists, as you might expect from the name, believed that the Earth was shaped by abrupt cataclysmic eventsfloods principally, which is why catastrophism and neptunism are often wrongly bundled together. Catastrophism was particularly comforting to clerics like Buckland because it allowed them to incorporate the biblical flood of Noah into serious scientific discussions. Uniformitarians by contrast believed that changes on Earth were gradual and that nearly all Earth processes happened slowly, over immense spans of time. Hutton was much more the father of the notion than Lyell, but it was Lyell most people read, and so he became in most peoples minds, then and now, the father of modern geological thought.
Lyell believed that the Earths shifts were uniform and steadythat everything that had ever happened in the past could be explained by events still going on today. Lyell and his adherents didnt just disdain catastrophism, they detested it. Catastrophists believed that extinctions were part of a series in which animals were repeatedly wiped out and replaced with new setsa belief that the naturalist T. H. Huxley mockingly likened to a succession of rubbers of whist, at the end of which the players upset the table and called for a new pack. It was too convenient a way to explain the unknown. Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster indolence, and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity, sniffed Lyell.
Lyells oversights were not inconsiderable. He failed to explain convincingly how mountain ranges were formed and overlooked glaciers as an agent of change. He refused to accept Louis Agassizs idea of ice agesthe refrigeration of the globe, as he dismissively termed itand was confident that mammals would be found in the oldest fossiliferous beds. He rejected the notion that animals and plants suffered sudden annihilations, and believed that all the principal animal groupsmammals, reptiles, fish, and so onhad coexisted since the dawn of time. On all of these he would ultimately be proved wrong.
Yet it would be nearly impossible to overstate Lyells influence.The Principles of Geology went through twelve editions in Lyells lifetime and contained notions that shaped geological thinking far into the twentieth century. Darwin took a first edition with him on theBeaglevoyage and wrote afterward that the great merit of thePrinciples was that it altered the whole tone of ones mind, and therefore that, when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes. In short, he thought him nearly a god, as did many of his generation. It is a testament to the strength of Lyells sway that in the 1980s when geologists had to abandon just a part of it to accommodate the impact theory of extinctions, it nearly killed them. But that is another chapter.
Meanwhile, geology had a great deal of sorting out to do, and not all of it went smoothly. From the outset geologists tried to categorize rocks by the periods in which they were laid down, but there were often bitter disagreements about where to put the dividing linesnone more so than a long-running debate that became known as the Great Devonian Controversy. The issue arose when the Reverend Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge claimed for the Cambrian period a layer of rock that Roderick Murchison believed belonged rightly to the Silurian. The dispute raged for years and grew extremely heated. De la Beche is a dirty dog, Murchison wrote to a friend in a typical outburst.
Some sense of the strength of feeling can be gained by glancing through the chapter titles of Martin J. S. Rudwicks excellent and somber account of the issue,The Great Devonian Controversy . These begin innocuously enough with headings such as Arenas of Gentlemanly Debate and Unraveling the Greywacke, but then proceed on to The Greywacke Defended and Attacked, Reproofs and Recriminations, The Spread of Ugly Rumors, Weaver Recants His Heresy, Putting a Provincial in His Place, and (in case there was any doubt that this was war) Murchison Opens the Rhineland Campaign. The fight was finally settled in 1879 with the simple expedient of coming up with a new period, the Ordovician, to be inserted between the two.
Because the British were the most active in the early years, British names are predominant in the geological lexicon.Devonian is of course from the English county of Devon.Cambrian comes from the Roman name for Wales, whileOrdovician andSilurian recall ancient Welsh tribes, the Ordovices and Silures. But with the rise of geological prospecting elsewhere, names began to creep in from all over.Jurassicrefers to the Jura Mountains on the border of France and Switzerland.Permianrecalls the former Russian province of Perm in the Ural Mountains. ForCretaceous(from the Latin for chalk) we are indebted to a Belgian geologist with the perky name of J. J. dOmalius dHalloy.
Originally, geological history was divided into four spans of time: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary. The system was too neat to last, and soon geologists were contributing additional divisions while eliminating others. Primary and secondary fell out of use altogether, while quaternary was discarded by some but kept by others. Today only tertiary remains as a common designation everywhere, even though it no longer represents a third period of anything.
Lyell, in hisPrinciples , introduced additional units known as epochs or series to cover the period since the age of the dinosaurs, among them Pleistocene (most recent), Pliocene (more recent), Miocene (moderately recent), and the rather endearingly vague Oligocene (but a little recent). Lyell originally intended to employ -synchronous for his endings, giving us such crunchy designations as Meiosynchronous and Pleiosynchronous. The Reverend William Whewell, an influential man, objected on etymological grounds and suggested instead an -eous pattern, producing Meioneous, Pleioneous, and so on. The -cene terminations were thus something of a compromise.
Nowadays, and speaking very generally, geological time is divided first into four great chunks known as eras: Precambrian, Paleozoic (from the Greek meaning old life), Mesozoic (middle life), and Cenozoic (recent life). These four eras are further divided into anywhere from a dozen to twenty subgroups, usually called periods though sometimes known as systems. Most of these are also reasonably well known: Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Silurian, and so on.8
Then come Lyells epochsthe Pleistocene, Miocene, and so onwhich apply only to the most recent (but paleontologically busy) sixty-five million years, and finally we have a mass of finer subdivisions known as stages or ages. Most of these are named, nearly always awkwardly, after places:Illinoian, Desmoinesian, Croixian, Kimmeridgian, and so on in like vein. Altogether, according to John McPhee, these number in the tens of dozens. Fortunately, unless you take up geology as a career, you are unlikely ever to hear any of them again.
Further confusing the matter is that the stages or ages in North America have different names from the stages in Europe and often only roughly intersect in time. Thus the North American Cincinnatian stage mostly corresponds with the Ashgillian stage in Europe, plus a tiny bit of the slightly earlier Caradocian stage.
Also, all this changes from textbook to textbook and from person to person, so that some authorities describe seven recent epochs, while others are content with four. In some books, too, you will find the tertiary and quaternary taken out and replaced by periods of different lengths called the Palaeogene and Neogene. Others divide the Precambrian into two eras, the very ancient Archean and the more recent Proterozoic. Sometimes too you will see the term Phanerozoic used to describe the span encompassing the Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic eras.
Moreover, all this applies only to units oftime . Rocks are divided into quite separate units known as systems, series, and stages. A distinction is also made between late and early (referring to time) and upper and lower (referring to layers of rock). It can all get terribly confusing to nonspecialists, but to a geologist these can be matters of passion. I have seen grown men glow incandescent with rage over this metaphorical millisecond in lifes history, the British paleontologist Richard Fortey has written with regard to a long-running twentieth-century dispute over where the boundary lies between the Cambrian and Ordovician.
At least today we can bring some sophisticated dating techniques to the table. For most of the nineteenth century geologists could draw on nothing more than the most hopeful guesswork. The frustrating position then was that although they could place the various rocks and fossils in order by age, they had no idea how long any of those ages were. When Buckland speculated on the antiquity of an Ichthyosaurus skeleton he could do no better than suggest that it had lived somewhere between ten thousand, or more than ten thousand times ten thousand years earlier.
Although there was no reliable way of dating periods, there was no shortage of people willing to try. The most well known early attempt was in 1650 when Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland made a careful study of the Bible and other historical sources and concluded, in a hefty tome calledAnnals of the Old Testament , that the Earth had been created at midday on October 23, 4004B.C., an assertion that has amused historians and textbook writers ever since.9
There is a persistent myth, incidentallyand one propounded in many serious booksthat Usshers views dominated scientific beliefs well into the nineteenth century, and that it was Lyell who put everyone straight. Stephen Jay Gould, inTimes Arrow, cites as a typical example this sentence from a popular book of the 1980s: Until Lyell published his book, most thinking people accepted the idea that the earth was young. In fact, no. As Martin J. S. Rudwick puts it, No geologist of any nationality whose work was taken seriously by other geologists advocated a timescale confined within the limits of a literalistic exegesis of Genesis. Even the Reverend Buckland, as pious a soul as the nineteenth century produced, noted that nowhere did the Bible suggest that God made Heaven and Earth on the first day, but merely in the beginning. That beginning, he reasoned, may have lasted millions upon millions of years. Everyone agreed that the Earth was ancient. The question was simply how ancient.
One of the better early attempts at dating the planet came from the ever-reliable Edmond Halley, who in 1715 suggested that if you divided the total amount of salt in the worlds seas by the amount added each year, you would get the number of years that the oceans had been in existence, which would give you a rough idea of Earths age. The logic was appealing, but unfortunately no one knew how much salt was in the sea or by how much it increased each year, which rendered the experiment impracticable.
The first attempt at measurement that could be called remotely scientific was made by the Frenchman Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, in the 1770s. It had long been known that the Earth radiated appreciable amounts of heatthat was apparent to anyone who went down a coal minebut there wasnt any way of estimating the rate of dissipation. Buffons experiment consisted of heating spheres until they glowed white hot and then estimating the rate of heat loss by touching them (presumably very lightly at first) as they cooled. From this he guessed the Earths age to be somewhere between 75,000 and 168,000 years old. This was of course a wild underestimate, but a radical notion nonetheless, and Buffon found himself threatened with excommunication for expressing it. A practical man, he apologized at once for his thoughtless heresy, then cheerfully repeated the assertions throughout his subsequent writings.
By the middle of the nineteenth century most learned people thought the Earth was at least a few million years old, perhaps even some tens of millions of years old, but probably not more than that. So it came as a surprise when, in 1859 inOn the Origin of Species , Charles Darwin announced that the geological processes that created the Weald, an area of southern England stretching across Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, had taken, by his calculations, 306,662,400 years to complete. The assertion was remarkable partly for being so arrestingly specific but even more for flying in the face of accepted wisdom about the age of the Earth.10It proved so contentious that Darwin withdrew it from the third edition of the book. The problem at its heart remained, however. Darwin and his geological friends needed the Earth to be old, but no one could figure out a way to make it so.
Unfortunately for Darwin, and for progress, the question came to the attention of the great Lord Kelvin (who, though indubitably great, was then still just plain William Thomson; he wouldnt be elevated to the peerage until 1892, when he was sixty-eight years old and nearing the end of his career, but I shall follow the convention here of using the name retroactively). Kelvin was one of the most extraordinary figures of the nineteenth centuryindeed of any century. The German scientist Hermann von Helmholtz, no intellectual slouch himself, wrote that Kelvin had by far the greatest intelligence and lucidity, and mobility of thought of any man he had ever met. I felt quite wooden beside him sometimes, he added, a bit dejectedly.
The sentiment is understandable, for Kelvin really was a kind of Victorian superman. He was born in 1824 in Belfast, the son of a professor of mathematics at the Royal Academical Institution who soon after transferred to Glasgow. There Kelvin proved himself such a prodigy that he was admitted to Glasgow University at the exceedingly tender age of ten. By the time he had reached his early twenties, he had studied at institutions in London and Paris, graduated from Cambridge (where he won the universitys top prizes for rowing and mathematics, and somehow found time to launch a musical society as well), been elected a fellow of Peterhouse, and written (in French and English) a dozen papers in pure and applied mathematics of such dazzling originality that he had to publish them anonymously for fear of embarrassing his superiors. At the age of twenty-two he returned to Glasgow University to take up a professorship in natural philosophy, a position he would hold for the next fifty-three years.
In the course of a long career (he lived till 1907 and the age of eighty-three), he wrote 661 papers, accumulated 69 patents (from which he grew abundantly wealthy), and gained renown in nearly every branch of the physical sciences. Among much else, he suggested the method that led directly to the invention of refrigeration, devised the scale of absolute temperature that still bears his name, invented the boosting devices that allowed telegrams to be sent across oceans, and made innumerable improvements to shipping and navigation, from the invention of a popular marine compass to the creation of the first depth sounder. And those were merely his practical achievements.
His theoretical work, in electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and the wave theory of light, was equally revolutionary.11He had really only one flaw and that was an inability to calculate the correct age of the Earth. The question occupied much of the second half of his career, but he never came anywhere near getting it right. His first effort, in 1862 for an article in a popular magazine calledMacmillans , suggested that the Earth was 98 million years old, but cautiously allowed that the figure could be as low as 20 million years or as high as 400 million. With remarkable prudence he acknowledged that his calculations could be wrong if sources now unknown to us are prepared in the great storehouse of creationbut it was clear that he thought that unlikely.
With the passage of time Kelvin would become more forthright in his assertions and less correct. He continually revised his estimates downward, from a maximum of 400 million years, to 100 million years, to 50 million years, and finally, in 1897, to a mere 24 million years. Kelvin wasnt being willful. It was simply that there was nothing in physics that could explain how a body the size of the Sun could burn continuously for more than a few tens of millions of years at most without exhausting its fuel. Therefore it followed that the Sun and its planets were relatively, but inescapably, youthful.
The problem was that nearly all the fossil evidence contradicted this, and suddenly in the nineteenth century there was alot of fossil evidence.