Final answer:
In the 16th century, fossils were not recognized as biological remnants due to limited preservation, conflicting religious views, inadequate technology, and the belief they were geological rather than biological. Scientists like Robert Hooke began to challenge these views, leading to a new understanding of fossils as evidence of life's history and Earth's changes.
Step-by-step explanation:
The primary reasons why 16th-century scientists did not interpret fossils as remains of past creatures included a lack of fossil record preservation, religious beliefs conflicting with the concept of extinction, insufficient technological tools for fossil analysis, and the belief that fossils were mere geological formations. During that period, the prevalent worldview was largely influenced by religious doctrine, which did not support the idea of extinction or a dynamic Earth that changed over time. Consequently, fossils were often explained away as having been placed within rocks through naturally occurring, non-biological processes.
Groundbreaking observations by naturalists such as Robert Hooke began to challenge these notions, suggesting that fossils were indeed the remains of past organisms and evidence of significant geographical changes over time. As understanding progressed, especially with the contributions of 19th-century scientists like Charles Lyell, the interpretation of fossils as biological remnants and indicators of Earth's age and the history of life became widely accepted.