238 Discussion between two Readers 
= natural selection of necessity produced the result that we 
ave seen. ‘T'he same result was thus produced of necessity, 1 
ear — that he would before he heard of Darwin? If» 
win’s Dieory: oy posed proof from design is invalidated by Dar: 
SECOND READER.—Waiving incidental points and looking 
po to the gist of the question, I remark that, the argument for 
esign as against chance in the formation of the eye, is most Com 
vincingly stated by you on p. 235-237. Upon this and numerons 
similar arguments the whole question we are arguing turns. | 
if the skeptic was about to seal his verdict in favor of desig® 
and a designer, when Darwin’s book appeared, why should his 
verdict now be changed or withheld > ‘All the facts about the 
eye, which convinced him that the organ was designed, remaip 
__ just as they were. His conviction was not produced through 
Y or eye-witness, but design was irresistibly inferred 
= the evidence of contrivance in the eye itself. 
ow, if the eye as it is, or has become, so convincingly argued 
* 
design, why not each particular step or part of this result? 
