e no knowledge exists. "God" is always
what Spinoza called it, the asylum of ignorance. When causes are unknown
"God" is brought forward. When causes are known "God" retires into the
background. "God" is not an explanation, it is a narcotic.

The argument from design rests upon the existence in nature of
adaptations either general or special. And quite obviously the value of
evidence derived from adaptations will be determined by the existence of
non-adaptations. If, that is, it can be shown that a certain assemblage
of forces produce adaptation, while in another instance they fail to
produce it, it would then be logical to argue that the difference was
due to the directive power being withdrawn in the latter case. But that
as we know is never the case. What we see is always the same conditions
producing the same effects. We are never able to say, "Here are natural
forces working _minus_ a directing intelligence, and here is an
assemblage of the same forces working _plus_ the addition of a
directing intelligence." If we could do that we should be able to
attribute the difference to the new factor. But this we are never able
to do. And it is an elementary principle of scientific method that
before we can assert the existence of a distinct force or factor, the
possibility of isolation must be shown. Adaptation can, then, only be
demonstrated by non-adaptation. And _non-adaptation in nature simply
does not exist, except in relation to an ideal end created by
ourselves_.

Surprising as this may appear to some, examination shows it to be no
more than a truism, and that granted, the whole strength of the argument
from adaptation, whether in the inorganic or the organic world,
disappears.

To see the matter the more clearly, let us drop for a time the word
"adaptation" and substitute the word "process." For that after all is
what nature presents us with. We see processes and we see results. It is
because we create an _end_ for these processes that we class them as
well or ill adapted to achieve it. We make a gun, and say it is ill or
well made as it shoots well or ill. But whether it carries straight or
not the relation of the shooting to the construction of the gun remains
the same. Judging the gun merely from its construction, the product
answers completely to the combination of its parts. Constructed in one
way the gun cannot but shoot straight. Constructed in another way the
gun cannot but shoot crookedly. And the only