 Those who try to dislodge this intuition argue that an appearance of design can be misleading. (Recall that “design” here includes the mechanical design-work of natural selection.) Consider, for example,Swampman’s eyes, or eye-analogs. It might be intuitive to attribute functions to them. But in nature nothing so intricately organized as if for the performance of a function fails to be the result of a design process. It is argued that habits of thought, which usually take us from an appearance of design to a function ascription, lead to false ascriptions in purely hypothetical unrealistic cases (Neander 1991). The same habits of thought, the argument continues, also lead us to falsely ascribe intentionality to Swampman’s internal states. 