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 endowed, 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- 
bering that 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 what 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 
