This chapter engages critically with Carol Cleland's recent work in the philosophy of historical science. Much of the practice of historical geology fits her description of the methodology of “prototypical historical science” quite well. However, there are also important kinds of historical scientific research that do not involve what she calls the search for the smoking gun. Moreover, Cleland's claim that prediction is not a major factor in historical natural science depends on taking an overly restrictive view of what counts as a prediction. Finally, Cleland's approach, which emphasizes methodology, is just one possible way of thinking about the difference between historical and nonhistorical science. Rather than focusing on the “how” of historical science, one can also focus on the “what” of historical science—on the nature of the processes and events that historical geologists study.

Abstract Georges Cuvier was born in Montbeliard in eastern France, which at that time was part of the dukedom of Württemberg. He received a Lutheran religious education and was deeply anchored to his Protestant faith until the death of his daughter Clementine in 1827. This faith, along with his writings, and especially his well-known Discours sur les Révolutions de la surface du globe , gave him the reputation of being convinced of the existence of the biblical Flood, the last catastrophe to have swept the surface of the Earth. However, Cuvier's ideas on creation and the Flood, borrowed and distorted by some British followers of natural theology, are not so clear-cut. A thorough reading of Cuvier's works and an analysis of his (unpublished) written exchange with Henry de la Fite, the translator of de Luc's Elementary Treatise on Geology , show that the French naturalist always took great care to separate all that referred to facts linked to natural history, palaeontology and geology from references to geotheories, metaphysical ideas and theological interpretations.

Abstract The fact that Olmec monumental sculpture exclusively uses basaltic stone requires explanation. Although many possible stone selection criteria are potentially involved in Olmec culture for the deliberate choice of stone, it is unlikely that all or even many were considered when but one stone type (basalt) was chosen for such objects as colossal heads and monumental sculpture. It is suggested here that the consistent correlation between Olmec monumental sculpture and basalt is explicable, based on the deliberate criterion of stone selection for metaphysical reasons and by physical characterization: this mostly dark, vesicular stone was the most compelling reminder of underworld power expressed in volcanism and volcanic mountains, and was thereby appropriated for power in rulership of the Olmec culture.