144 LUCK, OR CUNNING? 



"many and so great as to justify our classing them in 

 distinct categories so long as we have regard to the 

 daily purposes of life without looking at remoter ones. 

 If the above be admitted, we can now reply to those 

 who in an earlier chapter objected to our saying that 

 if Mr. Darwin denied design in the eye he should 

 deny it in the burglar's jemmy also. For if bodily 

 and non-bodily organs are essentially one in kind, 

 being each of them both living and ' non-living, and 

 each of them only a higher development of principles 

 already admitted and largely acted on in the other, 

 then the method of procedure observable in the evolu- 

 tion of the organs whose history is within our ken 

 should throw light upon the evolution of that whose 

 history goes back into so dim a past that we can only 

 know it by way of inference. In the absence of any 

 show of reason to the contrary we should argue from 

 the known to the unknown, and presume that even 

 as our non-bodily organs originated and were developed 

 through gradual accumulation of design, effort, and 

 contrivance guided by experience, so also must our 

 bodily organs have been, in spite of the fact that the 

 contrivance has been, as it were, denuded of external 

 evidences in the course of long time. This at least is 

 the most obvious inference to draw ; the burden of proof 

 should rest not with those who uphold function as 

 the most important means of organic modification, 

 but with those who impugn it ; it is hardly necessary, 

 however, to say that Mr. Darwin never attempted to 

 impugn by way of argument the conclusions either 

 of his grandfather or of Lamarck. He waved them 



