of Darwin’s Treatise on the Origin of Species. 285 
ture, or at least required proof of such design. Now as the 
watch may be instanced as a more complete exhibition of design 
than a flint knife or an hour-glass; I selected, after the example 
of Paley, the eye, as exhibiting by its complex but harmonious 
arrangements a higher evidence of design and the designer, than 
is to be found in a nerve sensitive to light, or any mere rudi- 
mentary part or organ. 1 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 acknowledge in the 
sequel to your argument that you may not have have suited it 
to the case as I had stated it. 
a 
forward in natural theology, and pertinaciously are upon by 
ast res e 
difference between the works of nature a 
art, yet if he can find in any organic body, or part 
tected by an intelli ent, 
of Paley he takes = eye, which, although 
inechanical, instrument like the watch, is as . 
tly to design. He sees, first that the eye is transparent, ioe? 
every other part of the body is opaque. Was this the re tO 
‘mere Hpicurean or Lucretian “fortuitous concourse OF ‘ving 
atoms?” He is not yet certain it might not be so. Nex pe 
that it is spherical and that this convex form alone 1s aig € 0 
changing the direction of the light which proceeds from a “eng 
bod » and of collecting it so as to form a distinct image within its 
Blobe, Next he sees at the exact place where this image must 
