For the moment I will pass over the obvious retort that there is no
sufficient parallelism between bodily organs and mechanical
inventions to make a denial of design in the one involve in equity a
denial of it in the other also, and that therefore the preceding
paragraph has no force. A man is not bound to deny design in
machines wherein it can be clearly seen because he denies it in
living organs where at best it is a matter of inference. This
retort is plausible, but in the course of the two next following
chapters but one it will be shown to be without force; for the
moment, however, beyond thus calling attention to it, I must pass it
by.

I do not mean to say that Mr. Darwin ever wrote anything which made
the utility of his contention as apparent as it is made by what I
have above put into the mouth of his supposed follower. Mr. Darwin
was the Gladstone of biology, and so old a scientific hand was not
going to make things unnecessarily clear unless it suited his
convenience. Then, indeed, he was like the man in "The Hunting of
the Snark," who said, "I told you once, I told you twice, what I
tell you three times is true." That what I have supposed said,
however, above about the jemmy is no exaggeration of Mr. Darwin's
attitude as regards design in organism will appear from the passage
about the eye already referred to, which it may perhaps be as well
to quote in full. Mr. Darwin says:-

"It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope.
We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-
continued efforts of the highest human intellects, and we naturally
infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process.