6 SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT 



explained in the same manner, namely, that it may 

 have been always there. He develops his argument 

 by explaining the structure of the watch, and by 

 claiming the inevitable inference that the watch 

 must have had a maker, " an artificer or artificers, 

 who formed it for the purpose which we find it 

 actually to answer : who comprehended its con- 

 struction, and designed its use." Nor in his opinion 

 are the arguments weakened by the facts that : 

 First we may never have seen a watch made, or 

 known an artist capable of making one ; second, 

 that the watch sometimes, even frequently, went 

 wrong ; third, that there were parts in it which 

 we did not understand. Further, he argues that 

 the finder of the watch could not be expected to 

 be satisfied by any of the following arguments : 

 First, that it was one out of many combinations 

 of matter, and might have been thus or otherwise 

 arranged ; second, " that there was a principle 

 of order which had disposed the parts of the watch 

 into their present form and situation " ; third, 

 that the mechanism was no proof of contrivance, 

 only a motive to induce the mind to think so ; nor 

 again by the argument that, fourth, the watch 

 was no more than the result of the laws of metallic 

 nature. Finally, he is not to be put off from his 

 belief by being told that he knew nothing of the 

 matter. Paley then applies his argument to differ- 

 ent parts of the human body, and subsequently 

 to various contrivances throughout the animal 

 kingdom. 



For example, he considers and describes the 

 human eye ; a marvel of contrivance. He points out 



