A GEOLOGICAL "SET-TO."

AT the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, at York, on Friday, great interest was excited to hear the Dean of York's paper, entitled "Critical Remarks on Certain Passages of Dr Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise," The large room appropriated to the geological section was literally crammed, and numbers went away unable to obtain admission. The Dean directed his observations entirely to Dr Buckland's theory of cosmogony, and he attempted to reconcile observed geological facts with the Mosaic account of the creation. The Dean conceived it to be impossible for the action of rain water on granite rocks to have decomposed them, and to have formed the upper series of rocks in a succession of ages, as Dr Buckland had affirmed. The very elements of which the upper strata consist were wanting in granite, therefore it could not be supposed that by any decomposition whatever of those rocks the upper strata could be formed. The theory he wished to substitute for that propounded by Dr Buckland was one that would, he thought, reconcile the whole observed phenomena with the account of Moses, that the world was created within a comparatively short period. He supposed the earth, and the air, and the waters of the earth to have been created at one time, and thickly stocked with inhabitants ; that by the action of volcanoes on land and under the sea, and by a great and sudden flood of water over the land, the upper strata were deposited, and the animals then living were destroyed, and thrown together in masses so as to form the strata of fossil organic remains now found in various parts of the world. The Dean contended also that the asserted order of superposition in rocks at different period was contradicted by the fact that, in several instances, what are termed the primary rocks are found resting upon the transition and secondary strata, which he maintained could not be, if there had been, as geologists asserted, a regular order of formation at different and distant periods.

Professor Sedgwick undertook to reply to the Dean of York's objections, Dr Buckland being prevented from attending the meeting by a sudden domestic calamity. The Professor's reply occupied an hour and a half and it was (says the reporter of the Post) a most slashing, uncompromising, and almost annihilating speech. He commenced by apologising on behalf of the council for their having allowed such a paper as the Dean of York's to be read. The principal object of the British Association, he observed, was the discovery of facts whereon theories might be based ; but it was altogether foreign to their plan to discuss mere hypothesis, without any facts to support them, such as that of the the Dean's. An exception, however, had been made in his case, partly from the position he holds, and more especially from deference to the general feeling entertained on the subject of cosmogony, and the desire which many individuals possessed of seeing the facts of geology reconciled with the Mosaic account of the creation.

But the Dean of York's hypothesis was not only unsupported by facts, but it was in direct opposition to them, and showed that be was utterly unacquainted with the elements of the science. The Rev. Professor then, in an energetic manner, proceeded to state many of the phenomena of geology, to prove the utter impossibility of the work of creation having been completed within the limited period supposed by the Dean. In the first place, the distinct organic remains found in strata lying one above another proved that the animals could not have been jumbled together by volcanic eruptions and floods, whilst the total absence in the upper strata of organic animals found in those below, and the great dissimilarity in their character, were evidence that the former race of beings must have become extinct before the new race were deposited above them was created. These distinct genera, which presented no type of resemblance to any form of living beings at present known, must have had time to grow, to propagate, and to perform all the functions of life, before they were destroyed; and in the strata containing vegetable remains it was evident that vegetation must have been proceeding for a long period before each succession of plants were destroyed, and afterwards covered by another creation of plants. The occasional occurrence of primary rocks, resting on the secondary and tertiary formations, was owing to the inversion of the strata, which had all been agitated, raised, and depressed, and in these convulsions of nature the order of succession had been inverted, as could be regularly traced. Professor Sedgwick admitted that there were several parts of Dr Buckland's book with which be could not agree, but it was substantially correct. The hypothesis of the creation was a probable one, and was only put forth as such, but whether correct or not, was altogether immaterial, as not one conclusion was founded on that hypothesis. In making this assault on the Dean of York's theory, the Rev. Professor was not sparing in disparaging expressions. He spoke of the inconvenience of allowing " addle-pated" individuals to occupy the time of the association with their crude speculations ; he said the Dean had shown himself to he quite ignorant of facts; that he should have come there to learn, and not to presume to teach geological truths, and that such indigested notions were merely " tales for the nursery," and not fitted for a scientific assembly. Alluding to the fossil remains of the great megatherion, which, according to the Dean's hypothesis, must have been caught up and deposited with other animals of a former creation, Professor Sedgwick said—" the Dean of York had altogether mistaken the age of the animal, he had forgotten to look megatherion in the mouth." This objection, and many other of the salient points of the Professor's speech, were received with great laughter, and when he concluded be was greeted with several rounds of applause.

The Dean of York, who had sat with an unperturbed countenance through the whole of Professor Sedgwick's cutting speech, said he and the Professor did not differ as to the facts, they only differed in their modes of accounting for them.

Professor Sedgwick's speech created a great sensation, as it is quite unusual in the proceedings of the association to make such a sledge-hammer attack, especially on a person holding a position like that of the Dean of York. The council offered very meagre reasons for allowing the paper to be read ; for if they had not collectively to reject it, it was rather too hard on Professor Sedgwick to appoint him single-handed to extinguish the Dean's theory. The Dean has published his paper, which was issued this afternoon under the title of "The Bible defended against the British Association."

... The " affair" between the Dean and the Professor has created a great sensation, and will probably give rise to future paper warfare.

South Australian 23 May 1845,