If intelligence is without an organization, design may be without a designer; because there are the same experience and analogy to support the organization, as there are to support the design argument."[282] But "organization proves _contrivance_....

If, then, every known organization is redolent with contrivance, and teems with marks of design, by what analogy can we conclude that _Deity's organization_ is devoid of these properties ?"--"Shelley thus states the case,--'From the fitness of the universe to its end, you infer the necessity of an intelligent Creator.

But if the fitness of the universe to produce certain effects be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to this end must exist in the author of this universe!...

how much more clearly must we perceive the necessity of this very Creator's creation, whose perfections comprehend an _arrangement_ far more accurate and just! The belief of an infinity of creative and created gods, each more eminently requiring an intelligent author of his being than the foregoing, is a direct consequence of the premises.'"-- "Hence from design, designers, and persons, we have stepped to organization and contrivance, and arrive at a contriver again."[283] Such is the outline of his argument.

He seems to think that if there be any flaw in it, the only assailable point must be his _extension of the analogy_: "In the chain of analogies which Paley commenced, and which I have continued, I believe there is no defective link.