34 



perfect. All I mean to imply is this : that I can conceive of 

 the possibility of better eyes than those with which man and 

 animals are eudowedj though what we possess are quite equal 

 on the average, to our requirements. 



The same remarks will apply to all other organs. If such 

 imperfections are obvious on a slight consideration, whence 

 came the idea of perfection ? 



I think the fact is, that an examination of the anatomy of 

 the eye proves it to be marvellously constructed. There is a 

 wonderful adjustment of all its parts, which immeasurably sur- 

 passes the finest execution of the most complicated optical 

 instrument ever made by man. That the teleologist, remem- 

 berinofthat he is told that everything, when created, was "very 

 good,^' is carried away by his zeal to exalt the glorious works 

 of the Creator, thinks he sees absolute perfection, by overlook- 

 ing its relative character. 



The observations made under the head of " use,^^ when 

 speaking of design, will have prepared the reader to infer that 

 uses are not absolutely perfect; i. e., the structures not being 

 perfect themselves, their uses naturally fail to attain to that 

 degree of perfection of which we can conceive a possibility. 

 This is seen in rudimentary organs and their homologies, 

 where the use, from having been admirable in the latter in- 

 stances, becomes evanescent in the former. Similarly is it 

 with the eye ; if the structure be not perfect, the use obviously 

 cannot be perfect. 



There is an objection always raised by teleologists to this 

 argument of relative use or imperfection which must be noticed. 

 They remark that we have no right to call any structure at all 

 " useless,^^ for, if we knew more, its use would become appa- 

 rent. If so, the burden of proof lies with the objector. But 

 is not this a mere assumption, based upon his own subjective 

 ideas of w^hat ought to be characteristic of the Deity ? What 

 I have already stated is a sufficient answer to this objection, 

 only remarking that, because some organs, on degradation, as- 

 sume a new function, does not warrant the assumption that all 

 do so. 



The third instance of imperfection to which I alluded, consists 

 in the adaptations of organisms, whether animals, inclusive of 

 man, or plants, to their sphere of existence. The remarks 

 made under this head in treating of design show clearly enough, 

 that in no case whatever is there that conceivably possible state 

 of absolute perfection, which some teleologists seem to affect in 

 their ideas. 



Perfection is the last element of the ordinary views of natural 

 theologians to be reviewed. In considering these views it was 



