variations are unfavorable?); "And if such variations should be
useful, (what if not useful?) to any animal under changing conditions
of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex
eye _could_ be formed by natural selection, _though insuperable
to the imagination_ (Italics ours) should not be considered as
subversive of the theory"!! Darwin undertakes a task far too great for
his mighty genius. "Believing that a perfect and complex eye could be
formed" is many moral leagues from proving that it was so formed. We
must have stronger proof than sufficient to lead us to believe that
such an eye could possibly be so formed. All proof is exhausted in the
struggle to prove the possibility of the formation of so marvelous an
eye, to say nothing of the probability, much less the certainty
required by science. We hold evolutionists to the necessity of
proving that the eye was _certainly_ so formed. We demand
it. Otherwise, we shall certainly "consider it subversive of the
theory." And if acquired by one species, how could it benefit another
species? But we must contest the claim that the wonderful eye of man
and animals _could_ have been formed by evolution. Darwin's whole
theory aims to account for all creation, with its super-abundant
evidences of design, by natural selection, which works without design
and without intelligence. The theory is founded upon the monstrous
assumption that unintelligent animals and plants, can, by aimless
effort arrive at such perfection as the organs of the human body,
exceeding anything in mechanical contrivance, invented to date by the
genius of man. Indeed, that wonderful invention of the telescope is
but a poor imitation of the eye, and does not begin to equal it in
marvelous design. Who would say that the telescope might have been
constructed by chance, or the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, or by
natural selection, or any other attempted method of blotting out the
great intelligent Designer of the universe? It not only "_seems_