Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
earth does not rest on any conclusive geological evidence'. Even the
biologists were concerned that Thomson's age limits were too short
for biological evolution. Edward Bagnall Poulton (1856-1943), the
husband of Emily Palmer of the biscuit family, and also Hope
Professor of Zoology at Cambridge, weighed in at the annual British
Association meeting in Liverpool in 1896. As President of the
Biological Section he could create quite a stir, and in his address he
attacked the findings both of Thomson and those of some geologists.
The most serious objection to some of Thomson's conclusions
came from another Ulster Protestant, John Perry (1850-1920), who
coincidently spent 1874 working as a research assistant in Thomson's
laboratory in Glasgow before moving to Japan. Following a stint as a
professor at the Imperial College of Engineering in Tokyo, Perry
returned to Britain. He took a position at the Finsbury Technical
College in London and in 1896 moved to the larger Royal College of
Science in the city. In 1894 Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, third
Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903), was President of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science meeting held that year in
Oxford. Although not a scientist, he was a Fellow of the Royal Society,
and he was influential: people listened to what he had to say. He had
recently twice served as Prime Minister, when his Conservative party
held power alternately with William Gladstone's Liberal Party, and he
would hold this office again for a further eight years between 1895 and
1902. In his address Salisbury attacked the basis of Darwin's theory of
natural selection saying that there was not enough time for natural
selection to have taken place. To back his assertion Salisbury depended
on the age estimates and reputation of Lord Kelvin. Having read the
printed paper, Perry wrote to Kelvin three times and outlined a number
of objections to his work and gave some suggestions as to how the
calculations could be improved, but he received no response. Not con-
tent to be brushed off, Perry sought and received support for his objec-
tions from other scientists and then felt forced to commit himself to
print. The following year his objections were outlined in two papers in
Nature. These were immediately countered by Kelvin in a note in the
