CONCLUSIONS 443 



hunter, who sets out his decoy birds and lies in wait for 

 the unsuspecting victims. 



It seems clear that in order to produce the organs of 

 our body, like the eye for instance, the cells must have a 

 mind similar to that of the man who makes optical instru- 

 ments ; they must be fully acquainted with the law of 

 optics. Chance or natural selection knows nothing of 

 optical law and cannot produce the eye any more than it 

 can the optical instruments. The same may also be said 

 of the other organs and especially of the powerful electric 

 organs in fishes. While these electric organs were merely 

 in their experimental state, they could not have been of 

 any advantage to the fish in his pursuit and capture of 

 other animals for food. The inventive mind of the build- 

 ers of the fish must have been the cause in this, as in other 

 inventions ; accident and chance could not produce elec- 

 tric storage batteries and apparatus with which to gather 

 and discharge powerful currents of electricity at will. 

 Accident and chance could no more have produced them 

 in the fish than in the power plants we now have in our 

 cities. The fish is a colony of cells and the city is a colony 

 of men. Why should the production of the cell be that of 

 accident and chance, and the production of man that of 

 intelligence? Man attempts to argue that the actions of 

 other animals are not intelligent and calls these actions 

 automatic, reflex, habitual and instinctive. When con- 

 fronted with the fact that these instinctive and automatic 

 actions are as intelligent and purposive as his own, he 

 makes the absurd statement that they were at some prior 

 time directed by the intelligence of the animal until they 

 became habitual, automatic and instinctive. When could 

 man or animal have been any more intelligent in the past 

 than he is today? The words, "variation," "natural selec- 

 tion," and "adaptation" used by many evolutionists as a 



