Pattern and Progress on the Geological Stage 483
then beget further fantasy with little hope for correction within an established
system of belief. Thus Cuvier, one of the greatest intellects of 19th century science,
a child of the Enlightenment and a champion of rationality, became a miracle-
mongering apologist for ecclesiastical reactionaries who had thrust their fingers
into the crumbling dike of superstition in a vain effort to stem the inexorable
advance of Lyellian science. Consider just two characterizations of Cuvier from
leading geological textbooks of the last generation: Gilluly, Waters and Woodford
(1959) on catastrophes: "These, he [Cuvier] believed, destroyed all existing life,
and following each a whole new fauna was created: this doctrine, called
Catastrophism, was unquestionably inspired by the Biblical story of the Deluge."
Or Stokes (1973, p. 37) on the progress of science: "Cuvier believed that Noah's
flood was universal and had prepared the earth for its present inhabitants. The
Church was happy to have the support of such an eminent scientist, and there is no
doubt that Cuvier's great reputation delayed the acceptance of the more accurate
views that ultimately prevailed."
I don't raise this example in the abstract interest of intellectual justice. The
acknowledgment of catastrophism as a viable alternative to Darwin's geological
requirements establishes an important theme of this book, and a potent reforming
force within modern evolutionary theory. We might pursue this issue only by
assessing the validity of modern arguments in the catastrophic mode, thus
continuing to ignore earlier history (usually because we accept the cardboard
characterization of Cuvier and colleagues, and therefore regard contemporary
claims as viable for the first time). I will discuss some modern rationales in
Chapter 12; but, in this historical part of the book, I need to demonstrate that
catastrophism contained important elements of validity from the start—elements
that rebut Darwin's crucial claim for gradual accumulation of changes induced by
biotic competition as the predominant vector of life's history. I therefore present
the basic argument in the most important of all catastrophist texts, the Discours
preliminaire of Georges Cuvier (1812, but in its canonical English translation by
Jameson, 1818). I do not, of
But never doubt the power of false characterization to ban effective consideration of the readily
available. A scientist beyond the pale becomes an object of ridicule without being read—and the
force of silence should never be underestimated. To cite just one personal anecdote about Cuvier
and his Discours preliminaire: The stereotyped Cuvier stands accused in most textbooks for
arguing that catastrophes wipe all life off the face of the earth, and that God then creates new
biotas from scratch. But Cuvier never advanced such a claim. No doubt, when pressed, he would
have accepted some new creation to replenish a depleted world. But he attributed much local
faunal change across stratigraphic boundaries to migration from previously isolated areas
following geographic alterations that accompany episodes of rapid geological change (citing, as
a potential example, the migration of Asian mammals to Australia should a land bridge ever
connect these continents). Cuvier didn't hide this argument; he presents his viewpoint
prominently in Section 30 of the canonical Jameson translation (1818, pp. 128-129). Yet, at least
a half dozen times in my professional life, colleagues ranging from graduate students to senior
professors have approached me with excitement, thinking that they had just made an important
and original discovery: "Hey, look at this. Cuvier didn't believe in complete replacement by new
creation..." "Yes," I reply, "page 128; the passage has always been there."