78 DARWINIANA. 



more complete exliibition of design than a flint knife 

 or an hom'-glass, I selected, after the example of Paley, 

 the eye, as exhibiting by its complex but harmonious 

 arrangements a higher evidence of design and a de- 

 signer than is to be f oimd in a nerve sensitive to light, 

 or any mere rudimentary part or organ. I could not 

 mean by skeptic one who believed in design so far as 

 a claw, or a nerve sensitive to light, was concerned, but 

 doubted all above. For one who believes in design at 

 all will not fail to recognize it in a hand or an eye. 

 But I need not extend these remarks, as you acknowl- 

 edge in the sequel to your argument that you may not 

 have suited it to the case as I had stated it. 



You now request me to " state the grounds upon 

 which I conclude that the supposed proof of design 

 from the eye and the hand, as it stood before Darwin's 

 theory was promulgated, is invalidated by the admis- 

 sion of that theory." It seems to me that a sufficient 

 answer to this question has already been made in the 

 last part of my former paper ; but, as you request it, 

 I will go over the leading points as there given, with 

 more minuteness of detail. 



Let us, then, suppose a skeptic, one who is yet con- 

 sidering and doubting of the existence of God, having 

 already concluded that the testimony from any and all 

 revelation is insufficient, and having rejected what is 

 called the a priori arguments brought forward in nat- 

 ural theology, and pertinaciously insisted uj)on by Dr. 

 Clark and others, turning as a last resource to the argu- 

 ment from design in the organic world. Yoltaire tells 

 him that a palace could not exist without an architect to 

 design it. Dr. Paley tells him that a watch proves the 



