Science Literature

Towards the end of the 17th Century in England, there was a fascinating debate between philosophers (scientists) and theologians about mountains. The question concerned their significance in our understanding of the natural world. Thomas Burnet triggered the debate by publishing "Sacred Theory of the Earth" in 1681 (in Latin) and in 1684 and 1690 (in English). This book was pioneering in its day in that it proposed a concordance between Biblical history and natural philosophy as well as arguing against Aristotle's eternalism.

"The book begins with the earth's creation from Chaos and goes on to explain the earth as paradise, the deluge, the destruction of the earth by fire and its eventual restitution at the end of time. What Burnet set out to do was to reconcile the scriptural account of the earth's history with recent sorts of natural philosophical explanations for them. His own preference was for a model of creation and physical causation that owed a great deal to the works of Rene Descartes. The different stages in the earth's history were illustrated in the book's beautiful frontispiece."

The frontispiece of the first volume of Burnet's Theory (Source here)

Burnet was taken to task by numerous scholars: "John Ray [botanist], the Newtonians John Keill and William Whiston, the scholar Richard Bentley and John Woodward [geologist]". They responded at two levels. The first area of concern was theological (which we will not consider further here), and the second was concerned with natural philosophy - particularly related to mountains.

Burnet presented mountains as a consequence of the Deluge, thereby associating them with God's judgment on human sinfulness. After the Deluge, the surface of the Earth was "a broken and confus'd heap of bodies" and mountains presented "the image or picture of a great Ruine".

"Burnet was unequivocal in his claim that mountains 'do not consist of any proportion of parts that is referable to any design, or that hath the least footsteps of Art or Counsel'."

His adversaries did not deny the Biblical narrative of Creation, the Antediluvian Earth, the Deluge and the Modern era - but they did not agree about design! Their writings reveal them demonstrating that mountains have uses (functionality) and that mountains are aesthetically pleasing (not ugly). It appears that the quest to strengthen functionality arguments stimulated scientific enquiry (particularly in understanding the role of mountains in the water cycle).

"Ray, Bentley, Keil and others set about enumerating all the different 'uses' of mountains that they could think of. Their discussions ranged from the role of mountains as alpine habitats, their supposed role in regulating the weather, and they even touted mountains as useful natural frontiers between nations. Perhaps most important to posterity are their inclusion of early explanations of the water cycle. Research carried out by Edmund Halley on St Helena into the possible role of mountains in the water cycle provided Burnet's critics with ammunition to prove that mountains were indeed useful, or perhaps even essential to the very preservation of human life on earth."

Regarding aesthetic arguments, Burnet found it easier to make a case for the ugliness of mountains by comparing them with the mountains of the Moon. If we viewed the Earth from afar, "look'd upon with a good Glass [telescope]",the mountains would appear "rude and ragged". In countering this argument, there was some incredulity with the idea of being elevated to so high a vantage point , but the main objection appealed to the aesthetics of landscape painting and gardening.

"The two key pieces of terminology used by Burnet's opponents to describe the place of mountains in the landscape were 'prospect' and 'variety'. [. . .] In seventeenth-century English discourse the word 'prospect' could be used interchangeably with 'landscape painting' and referred to landscape paintings made through the formal practices of mathematical perspective. [. . .] 'Variety' was the most important aesthetic consideration in contemporary discussions of landscape art. Early English theorists of landscape art praised mountains for their contribution to landscape paintings that would otherwise lack variety and fail to stimulate onlookers. Burnet's critics put this exact argument to use in their criticism of his aesthetic."

Wragge-Morley, the author of this analysis, points out that "the difference between seeing the truth about the design of mountains, and seeing nothing at all, lay in a simple perspectival shift". One person looks at a relief map of the globe and sees lumps and scars; another brings the perspective of landscape art and sees beauty, grandeur and majesty.

"This in turn could lend weight to an argument for or against their utility, which could in turn have ramifications for one's view of their theological meaning."

The history of ideas provides much food for thought, and this "strange and surprising debate" is no exception. There appear to be at least two applications that are relevant to our own day and to contemporary debates about design. First, Wragge-Morley's comments on perspective could be applied to design thinking generally. This is the explanation why some look at the natural world and see design everywhere, whereas others witness the same objects and declare them to be design-free. These perspective differences do not reflect on people's ability to think rationally, but rather point to underlying metaphysical differences affecting both thinking and scientific practice. In his essay, Wragge-Morley does not enlarge on these aspects, but he does draw attention to Burnet's interest in Cartesian philosophy which would be a good launching point for further analysis.

Second, this case-study reveals the way design-based thinking triggered research into functionality. Making a design inference actually stimulated enquiry, because intelligent design suggests purpose and meaning. This is a principle of general application, and it is an effective response to those who claim that ID is a science-stopper. The claim is entirely polemical, unsupported by evidence. A modern-day example is Junk DNA. Darwinian biologists regarded it as garbage and it was not targeted for research. Those brave scientists who were prepared to challenge the paradigm by postulating functionality found that they were stumbling on a treasure-trove of cellular information! (Go here and here).

It is worth pointing out, in conclusion, that design thinking is not lacking in theoretical development. This debate about mountains predated natural theology and William Paley: differences in emphasis can be traced through this period. The modern resurgence of design-thinking is not a return to Paley's watchmaker arguments. Finding complexity and functionality is not enough to confirm design. We recognise that some functionality can be introduced by natural processes: a fallen tree can provide a bridge over a river, but that does not mean the functionality was designed. Today, we talk more about information, and refer to complex specified information when making design inferences.

A strange and surprising debate: mountains, original sin and 'science' in seventeenth-century England
Alexander Wragge-Morley
Endeavour, Volume 33, Issue 2, June 2009, Pages 76-80 | doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2009.05.001

It could come as a shock to learn that some seventeenth-century men of science and learning thought that mountains were bad. Even more alarmingly, some thought that God had imposed them on the earth to punish man for his sins. By the end of the seventeenth century, surprisingly many English natural philosophers and theologians were engaged in a debate about whether mountains were 'good' or 'bad', useful or useless. At stake in this debate were not just the careers of its participants, but arguments about the best ways of looking at and reckoning with 'nature' itself.