234 Discussion between two Readers 
factors,—one, the immediate secondary cause of the changes, 
which so far explains them; the other an unresolved or unex: 
plained phenomenon, which will then stand just where the pro- 
duct, variation, stands now, only that it will be one step nearer 
This line of argument appears to me so convincing, that I am 
bound to suppose that it does not meet your case. Although 
you introduced players to illustrate what design is, it is probable 
arguments, and may account for the actual results without de — 
sign. I do not clearly apprehend this third alternative. 
Will you be so good, then, as to state the grounds upon which 
you conclude that the supposed proof of design from the eye, oF 
e hand, as it stood before Darwin’s theory was promulgated, 
would be invalidated by the admission of this new theory. 
First ReapER.—As I have ever found you, in controversy, 
meeting the array of your opponent, fairly and directly, without 
at the course taken in your answer to my statement on ¥* 
e seem to suppose that I instanced the 
means ac 
cede'to, that construction. My purpose in bringing the billiard 
table upon the scene was to illustrate, by example, design wd 
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 ot 
eT Tae a Ser ee ey a ae ee eine mepmee ay eS 
conception or misapplication of my illustration, peer” tak 
me. Again, following this misconception, you suppose the c va 
Sees 
exh for its designer, God,) 
as bringing to the examination a belief in the existence of desig? 
heart, stomach, brain, &e. By skeptic I, of course, intend 
one who doubted the existence of design in every orgaml¢ 
FS ete LR i en ahs oi aki Aa SO Cia ee 
