I do not wish to “Hansardise” Sir William Thomson by laying much stress on the fact that, only fifteen years ago he entertained a totally different view of the origin of the sun’s heat, and believed that the energy radiated from year to year was supplied from year to year—­a doctrine which would have suited Hutton perfectly.  But the fact that so eminent a physical philosopher has, thus recently, held views opposite to those which he now entertains, and that he confesses his own estimates to be “very vague,” justly entitles us to disregard those estimates, if any distinct facts on our side go against them.  However, I am not aware that such facts exist.  As I have already said, for anything I know, one, two, or three hundred millions of years may serve the needs of geologists perfectly well.

III.  The third line of argument is based upon the temperature of the interior of the earth.  Sir W. Thomson refers to certain investigations which prove that the present thermal condition of the interior of the earth implies either a heating of the earth within the last 20,000 years of as much as 100 deg.  F., or a greater heating all over the surface at some time further back than 20,000 years, and then proceeds thus:—­

“Now, are geologists prepared to admit that, at some time within the last 20,000 years, there has been all over the earth so high a temperature as that?  I presume not; no geologist—­no modern geologist—­would for a moment admit the hypothesis that the present state of underground heat is due to a heating of the surface at so late a period as 20,000 years ago.  If that is not admitted we are driven to a greater heat at some time more than 20,000 years ago.  A greater heating all over the surface than 100 deg.  Fahrenheit would kill nearly all existing plants and animals, I may safely say.  Are modern geologists prepared to say that all life was killed off the earth 50,000, 100,000, or 200,000 years ago?  For the uniformity theory, the further back the time of high surface-temperature is put the better; but the further back the time of heating, the hotter it must have been.  The best for those who draw most largely on time is that which puts it furthest back; and that is the theory that the heating was enough to melt the whole.  But even if it was enough to melt the whole, we must still admit some limit, such as fifty million years, one hundred million years, or two or three hundred million years ago.  Beyond that we cannot go."[22]

[Footnote 22:  Loc. cit. p. 24.]

It will be observed that the “limit” is once again of the vaguest, ranging from 50,000,000 years to 300,000,000.  And the reply is, once more, that, for anything that can be proved to the contrary, one or two hundred million years might serve the purpose, even of a thoroughgoing Huttonian uniformitarian, very well.

But if, on the other hand, the 100,000,000 or 200,000,000 years appear to be insufficient for geological purposes, we must closely criticise the method by which the limit is reached.  The argument is simple enough. Assuming the earth to be nothing but a cooling mass, the quantity of heat lost per year, supposing the rate of cooling to have been uniform, multiplied by any given number of years, will be given the minimum temperature that number of years ago.