An Expository Outline of the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" - With a Notice of the Author's "Explanations:" A Sequel to the Vestiges by Anonymous
page 17 of 84 (20%)
page 17 of 84 (20%)
|
with a few general strictures. First, on its inconsistency with what we
know of the solar system; and, secondly, on its inadequacy to explain the facts of which we are cognizant on our own globe. In the first place, for the hypothesis to be applicable to our system, it is requisite that the primary and secondary bodies should revolve, both in their orbits and round their axes, in one direction, and nearly in one plane. Most of the bodies of the system observe these laws, their orbits are nearly circular, nearly in the plane of the original equator of the solar rotation, and in the direction of that rotation. But there are exceptions; the comets, which intersect the equatorial plane in every angle of direction form one, and the most distant of the planets forms another. The satellites of Uranus are retrograde. They move from east to west in orbits highly inclined to that of their primary, and on both accounts are exceptions to the order of the other secondary bodies. Our author is so perplexed by this inconsistency that he first doubts the fact, and next tries to explain it by alleging that "it may be owing to a _bouleversement_ of the primary." What is meant by the _bouleversement_ of a planet none of his critics seem to apprehend, nor do we. But that the moons of Uranus are contrariwise to those of the other planets, Sir JOHN HERSCHEL has indubitably established; so that the author at any rate upon this point has sustained a bouleversement. Our own moon forms a third exception to his theory. According to his system, this satellite is a slip or graft from our planet, and in constitution, it might be inferred, would partake of the elements of the parent. But the fact is otherwise. The moon has no atmosphere, no seas, or rivers, nor any water, and of course totally unfit for human inhabitants, or organic life of any kind. It must, then, have had a different origin, or be in some earlier stage of development than that |
|