already stated, we think that a theistic view of Nature is implied in his book, and we must charitably refrain from suggesting the contrary until the contrary is logically deduced from his premises.  If, however, he anywhere maintains that the natural causes through which species are diversified operate without an ordaining and directing intelligence, and that the orderly arrangements and admirable adaptations we see all around us are fortuitous or blind, undesigned results—­that the eye, though it came to see, was not designed for seeing, nor the hand for handling—­then, we suppose, he is justly chargeable with denying, and very needlessly denying, all design in organic Nature; otherwise, we suppose not.  Why, if Darwin’s well-known passage about the eye[III-10] equivocal though some of the language be—­does not imply ordaining and directing intelligence, then he refutes his own theory as effectually as any of his opponents are likely to do.  He asks: 

“May we not believe that [under variation proceeding long enough, generation multiplying the better variations times enough, and natural selection securing the improvements] a living optical instrument might be thus formed as superior to one of glass as the works of the Creator are to those of man?”

This must mean one of two things:  either that the living instrument was made and perfected under (which is the same thing as by) an intelligent First Cause, or that it was not.  If it was, then theism is asserted; and as to the mode of operation, how do we know, and why must we believe, that, fitting precedent forms being in existence, a living instrument (so different from a lifeless manufacture) would be originated and perfected in any other way, or that this is not the fitting way?  If it means that it was not, if he so misuses words that by the Creator he intends an unintelligent power, undirected force, or necessity, then he has put his case so as to invite disbelief in it.  For then blind forces have produced not only manifest adaptions of means to specific ends—­which is absurd enough—­but better adjusted and more perfect instruments or machines than intellect (that is, human intellect) can contrive and human skill execute—­which no sane person will believe.

On the other hand, if Darwin even admits—­we will not say adopts—­the theistic view, he may save himself much needless trouble in the endeavor to account for the absence of every sort of intermediate form.  Those in the line between one species and another supposed to be derived from it he may be bound to provide; but as to “an infinite number of other varieties not intermediate, gross, rude, and purposeless, the unmeaning creations of an unconscious cause,” born only to perish, which a relentless reviewer has imposed upon his theory—­rightly enough upon the atheistic alternative—­the theistic view rids him at once of this “scum of creation.”  For, as species do not now vary at all times and places and in all directions,