A Catholic Bishop as Scientist: Nicolas Steno, Geologist, Biologist and Paleontologist

Dear friends, you must have noticed that today’s google doodle shows a quite funny picture featuring the strata of the earth.

Blessed Nicolas Steno 1638-1686

But only by chance I got to know just a short moment ago that this is done in honour to a great Danish scientist Nicolas Steno, who is a Blessed of the Church. So, via Google, today the whole world celebrates his birthday, which is 1th. Jan. As a young man of 21, he went to the Netherlands to study anatomy, “there he discovered, among other things, the excretory duct of the parotid glands (ductus Stenonianus) and the circulation of the blood in the human body” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Later he went to Florence, where he got convinced by Catholicism and entered the Church on 4 November, 1667. Meanwhile, the Royal Court of Denmark appointed him a professor but he was not able to return as a Catholic. He remained in Italy and did important researches in Geology and received the Holy Order in 1675. Two years after he was consecrated a bishop. “As such, he lived a most self-denying and mortified life, giving all he had to the poor. He was made vicar Apostolic for the northern missions and worked nine years as an apostle in the north of Germany” (ibd.). Beside his pioneer discoveries in natural science, he wrote also sixteen theological works. He was declared a Blessed by Pope John Paul II in 1988. I know too little about natural sciences so please allow me to quote extensively the source provided by Berkeley University (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html):

Despite a relatively brief scientific career, Nicholas Steno’s work on the formation of rock layers and the fossils they contain was crucial to the development of modern geology. The principles he stated continue to be used today by geologists and paleontologists.

Steno was born as Niels Stensen, but he is better known by the Latinized forms of his name, Nicholas Stenonis or Nicholas Steno. A native of Copenhagen, Denmark, Steno left Denmark in 1660 to study medicine at the leading center for medical education of his time, the University of Leiden in the Netherlands. After brief stints in Paris and Montpelier, he moved to Florence, Italy in 1665. His studies in anatomy attracted the attention of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II, who was also a patron of the sciences. Duke Ferdinand appointed Steno to a hospital post that left him ample time for his research. Steno was also elected to the Accademia del Cimento (Experimental Academy), a body of researchers inspired by Galileo’s experimental and mathematical approach to science.

Drawing of a shark's head and teeth Steno’s anatomical studies focused at first on the muscular system and the nature of muscle contraction — for example, he used geometry to show that a contracting muscle changes its shape but not its volume. However, in October 1666, two fishermen caught a huge shark near the town of Livorno, and Duke Ferdinand ordered its head to be sent to Steno. Steno dissected it and published his findings in 1667. The figure at right shows the figure published by Steno of the shark’s head and teeth (click on it to view a larger version). While examining the teeth of the shark, Steno was struck by their resemblance to certain stony objects, called glossopetrae or “tongue stones,” that were found in certain rocks. Ancient authorities, such as the Roman author Pliny the Elder, had suggested that these stones fell from the sky or from the moon. Others were of the opinion, also going back to ancient times, that fossils naturally grew in the rocks. Steno’s contemporary Athanasius Kircher, for example, attributed fossils to a “lapidifying virtue diffused through the whole body of the geocosm.” Steno, however, argued that glossopetrae looked like shark teeth because they were shark teeth, that had come from the mouths of once-living sharks, and come to be buried in mud or sand that was now dry land. There were differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks’ teeth, but Steno used the “corpuscular theory of matter”, a forerunner of atomic theory, to argue that fossils could be altered in chemical composition without changing their form.

Steno’s conclusion may seem so blatantly obvious as to be insignificant. Furthermore, Steno was not the first person to link “tongue stones” with sharks’ teeth. Steno’s contemporaries Robert Hooke and John Ray also argued that fossils were the remains of once-living organisms. The Italian naturalist Fabio Colonna had stated that “tongue stones” were shark teeth in a book published in 1616, and others had noticed the similarity even earlier. However, it is important to remember that shark teeth, and some other fossils such as relatively young clams and snails, are “easy fossils” — they resemble living organisms very closely. A great many fossils do not look like familiar living organisms at all. They may be preserved in an unusual way; they may represent only a part or fragment of an organism; they may belong to extinct taxa; and/or their living counterparts may be unfamiliar or unknown. In Steno’s time, in fact, the word “fossil” could mean virtually anything dug from the Earth. Naturalists did not always distinguish between “fossils” that resembled living organisms, and “fossils” such as crystals and ores that did form within the Earth. For all these reasons, the distinction between which objects found in rocks were and were not once-living organisms — if, indeed, any of them were — was not at all obvious in the seventeenth century.

Steno’s work on shark teeth led him to the more general question of how any solid object could come to be found inside another solid object, such as a rock or a layer of rock. The “solid bodies within solids” that attracted Steno’s interest included, not only fossils as we would define them today, but minerals, crystals, incrustations, veins, and even entire rock layers or strata. Steno’s ideas on how these could form were published in 1669, under the title De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus, or Preliminary discourse to a dissertation on a solid body naturally contained within a solid. (The book’s title is often simply abbreviated to Prodromus.)

Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Steno reasoned that rock strata and similar deposits were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno’s principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this position are due to the rocks being disturbed later. Steno stated another, more general principle in this way:

If a solid body is enclosed on all sides by another solid body, of the two bodies that one first became hard which, in the mutual contact, expresses on its own surface the properties of the other surface.

In other words: a solid object will cause any solids that form around it later to conform to its own shape. Steno was able to show by this reasoning that fossils and crystals must have solidified before the host rock that contains them was formed. If a “tongue stone” had grown within a rock, it would have been distorted by the surrounding rock, in much the same way that a tree root is distorted by growing into a crack in the earth. Instead, the “tongue stone” must have been buried in soft sediments which hardened later. Veins (mineral-filled cracks) and many crystals, on the other hand, must have formed after the surrounding rock was a solid, because they often did show irregularities of form caused by having to conform to the surrounding solid rock. These, Steno argued, must have grown from fluids percolating within the Earth, in the same manner that crystals could be made to grow in chemistry experiments. Finally, in the case of strata, layers on top of a set of strata conform to the shape of lower layers. . . and therefore, in a set of strata, the youngest layers must be those of the top, and the oldest must lie on the bottom. This conclusion also follows from Steno’s reasoning that rock strata form when particles fall out of suspension in a fluid — but it also applies to rocks that do not form in this way, such as many igneous rocks. This is now referred to as Steno’s law of superposition: layers of rock are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement. It is Steno’s most famous contribution to geology.

Steno realized that other geological processes could create apparent exceptions to his laws of superposition and horizontality. He reasoned that the formation of caves might remove part of a lower layer, and that the collapse of a cave might transport large pieces of an upper layer downwards. He recognized that rocks might be uplifted by subterranean forces. Geologists now recognize that tilting, folding, and faulting may also complicate the analysis of a stratigraphic sequence. Molten rock may force its way through surrounding rocks and may sometimes squeeze between older rock layers, also forming an exception to Steno’s law. However, such anomalies leave physical evidence in the disturbed rocks; for example, faulted rock layers may be cracked, broken, or metamorphosed along the fault line.

It should also be remembered that Steno’s law is a statement of relative time, not absolute time: two rock layers, in principle, could have formed millions of years apart or a few hours or days apart. Steno himself saw no difficulty in attributing the formation of most rocks to the flood mentioned in the Bible. However, he noticed that, of the two major rock types in the Apennine Mountains near Florence, the lower layers had no fossils, while the upper ones were rich in fossils. He suggested that the upper layers had formed in the Flood, after the creation of life, while the lower ones had formed before life had existed. This was the first use of geology to try to distinguish different time periods in the Earth’s history — an approach that would develop spectacularly in the work of later scientists.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A Catholic Bishop as Scientist: Nicolas Steno, Geologist, Biologist and Paleontologist

  1. pablo says:

    All Truth and beauty belongs to Holy Mother Church.

    This son of the Church is just one of many that has brought forward that which God has created.

    All things God created Ex nihilo and in toto.

    Great post, I enjoy it and will pass it on to my friends.

    Ave Maria purissima!



  2. Wall Eyed Mr Whippy says:

    Wan’t it Robert Hook who discovered the circulation of the blood? Doesn’t matter really…

    Godlen has, not unreasonably, imagined me to be a crusty old pipe-smoking gent, and he teased me with this. In the same spirit of imagining how people might look, I was struck with the drawing of the shark’s head above, and imagined it to be Godlen in a good mood, or perhaps yawning as he posts.

    …Forgive us our sins, Godlen…..

    I imagine Teresa to be “The Girl from Ipanima”….

    .”Tall and fair and lovely and gentle
    The girl from Ipanima goes walking
    And when she passes each guy…..!”

    Jabba I imagine to be as one of those marble busts you see of Roman Emperors, looking down imperiously (as they do) on us poor unwashed plebs below……..

    Toad I imagine to be …well…a toad. Green and glutinous. (I’ve seen his pic)

    Raven is of course a powerful corbid, ready to peck you if roused.

    As I said elsewhere, I am rather blessed with ‘young Paul Newmanesque’ looks in my stunningly handsome way.

    (better stop there. ed.)


  3. Hugh Miller says:

    A major web site for understanding how sediments are really deposited while in the mud state and carried by moving waters can be found on http://www.sedimentology.fr/ This late 20 st to 21st century research corrects the assumptions of Stennen to Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell of the 19th century that the top strata is always older than the one below it. The modern sedimentological lab, flume and field studies do not diminish the greatness of Steno but only shows how Darwin and Lyell missued Venerable Steno’s observations to promote evolution of life from non-life without further research. Other research supporting the above web site and the magisterium of our Traditional Catholic faith are http://www.kolbecenter.org http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com showing dinosasurs are 2000 times younger than claims of evolution theory http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/ http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm Stenno believed in the flood of Noah as do I but Fench traditional Catholic Guy Berthault of France made some very important corrections or revisions which I hope that you will study and pass on. God bless.


  4. toadspittle says:


    Toad can’t be too bothered to go too deply into the apparent ravings of poor Hugh, so let’s just ask does he believe in Natural Selection, the theory that all living things on Earth are descended from a single cell – or not?

    What possible difference does it it make to Christianity – always assuming it to be true, (which it certainly is not!) – that dinosaurs are 2000 times “younger” than we put them at at present?

    “This late 20 st to 21st century research corrects the assumptions of Stennen to Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell of the 19th century that the top strata is always older than the one below it. “

    If Toad reads the above correctly – and God only knows if he does or not, it is so ambigous, – Hugh thinks that Darwin/Lyell believed that, “..the top strata is always older than the one below it?”
    On the other hand, as Jabba would say, bollocks.


  5. Hugh Miller says:

    My Dear Toadspittle: [correction: I meant to say the opposite – I should have said, ” the top strata is always “younger” than the one below it – a senior moment – must have been upset over my wife of 53 years going to a nursing home back in January 2012 – bullock happens you know! I thank you for catching that] meanwhile, I suggest that you———

    please get off your toadstool, open your eyes and read the reports now that I’ve humbly admitted my blunder. There appears to be no 65 to 230 million years between dinosaurs and man based on: (1) C-14 dating of dinosaur bones from TX to AK, China and Belgium (2) Distinct dinosaur depictions world-wide, and (3) fossil human footprints with and without dinosaur footprints together in Cretaceous and other strata and validated by CT-scans of the footprints in rocks and much, much more. Of course I believe in Natural selection or survival of the fittest but not spontaneous generation of life from star dust over billions of years. Does the 2000 times reduction in the geologic time scale suggest a massive flood of world-wide proportions with survifval of major species like dinosaur and man to name a few? Duh! That is why Darwinism and spontaneous generation of life from star dust can not survive; it’s a fairy tale for educators seeking tenure and for gullible students of all ages. That toadstool is poisonous to your Catholic Faith. Perhaps a re-read ot the church fathers might be helpful.

    http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm Peer reviewed 2009 technical paper – published in Italy and Germany

    http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html — press release late August 2012

    Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones – under 40,000 years old – YouTube 16 minute lecture presented at Singapore conference of AOGS-AGU assembly conference of 2000 scientists [need to turn up speaker volume] August 15, 2012.

    http://youtu.be/TgM_p9UfOeI 12 minute U-tube November 13, 2012 showing empirical lab reports and documentation of dinosaur excavations.

    http://www.sedimentology.fr/ Sedimentology studies that refutes the assumptions of Lyell and Stennen before him that the top strata is always older than the strata underneath and other challenges.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s