DESIGN VERSUS NECESSITY. 77 



D. T. — As I have ever found yon, in controversy, 

 meeting the array of your opponent fairly and directly, 

 without any attempt to strike the body of his argument 

 through an unguarded joint in the phraseology, I was 

 somewhat surprised at the course taken in your answer 

 to my statement on Darwin's theory. You there seem 

 to suppose that I instanced the action of the billiard 

 balls and players as a parallel, throughout, to the for- 

 mation of the organic world. Had it occurred to me 

 that such an application might be supposed to follow 

 legitimately from my introduction of this action, I 

 should certainly have stated that I did not intend, and 

 should by no means accede to, that construction. My 

 purpose in bringing the billiard-table upon the scene 

 was to illustrate, by example, design and necessity, as 

 different and independent sources from which results, 

 it might indeed be identical results, may be derived. 

 All the conclusions, therefore, that you have arrived 

 at through this misconception or misapplication of my 

 illustration, I cannot take as an answer to the matter 

 stated or intended to be stated by me. Again, follow- 

 ing this misconception, you suppose the skeptic (in- 

 stanced by me as revealing through the evidence of 

 design, exhibited in the structure of the eye, for its 

 designer, God) as bringing to the examination a belief 

 in the existence of design in the construction of the 

 animals as they existed up to the moment when the 

 eye was, according to my supposition, added to the 

 heart, stomach, brain, etc. By skeptic I, of course, 

 intended one who doubted the existence of design in 

 every organic structure, or at least required proof of 

 6uch design. Kow, as the watch may be instanced as a 



