232 Discussion between two Readers 
ease, yet the repetition of the result, and from different positions 
and under varied circumstances, showed that there must have 
been design. 
Moreover, in the way your case is stated, it seems to concede 
the most important half of the question, and so affor 
sumption for the rest, on the side of design. For you seem to 
assume an actor, a designer, accomplishing his design in the first 
instance. You—a bystander—infer that the player effected his 
design in sending the first ball to the pocket before him. ° You 
infer this from observation alone. Must you not fromacontinu 
ance of the same observation equally infer a common design ot 
the two players in the complex result, or a design of one ol ~ 
them to frustrate the design of the other? If you grant a design ‘3 
ing actor, the presumption of design is as strong, or upon COD — 
tinued observation of instances soon becomes as strong, In regard 
to the deflection of the balls, or variation of the species, as it was 
for the result of the first impulse or for the production of the ong: 
inal animal, &c. 
But in the case to be illustrated, we do not see the player. We 
s 
=F 
while the alternative is between design and chance,—then me 
prove it with all the proof the case is susceptible of, and Wi 
complete conviction. For we cannot doubt that the watch had 
or with the surroundings. The original impulse, which we SP 
ess was in the line of the observed movement, only proves t0 
took place with a series of results, each and all of them none the 
Jess determined, none the less designed. 
nie. 
farther back, in the sense of furnishing evidence or oper 
OW ty. 
Evidence of design, I think oA will allow, every where 
wn from the observation of adaptations and of results, 2A 
