C. S. Lewis on Creation and Evolution: The Acworth Letters, 1944-1960

The American Scientific Affiliation Science in Christian Perspective - PSCF 48 (March 1996): 28-33. ^ | March 1996 | Gary B. Ferngren and Ronald L. Numbers

[betty boop]

In ["The Funeral of a Great Myth," Lewis] distinguished between "the doctrine of Evolution as held by practising biologists," which he deemed to be "a genuine scientific hypothesis," and the speculative versions of evolution that preceded [and it seems followed, with neo-Darwinism] Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. Scientific evolution, he argued, is a purely biological theorem. It takes over organic life on this planet as a going concern and tries to explain certain changes within that field. It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements. [my bolds]

Note that by saying evolution theory takes over a "going concern," Lewis acknowledges it is not an origin of life hypothesis. As he notes, evolution theory has nothing to do with metaphysics or theology -- and yet seemingly it has become a "religion" to many of its devotees. Go figure!

Lewis' take on evolution theory seems pretty sound and even-handed to me. Thanks for the ping to this, curiosity.

[JCEccles]

Evolution was a creed so pervasive and so deeply held that even to appear to question it was to invite attack. For example, in a vitriolic article the Marxist geneticist J.B.S. Haldane accused Lewis of getting his science wrong and of traducing scientists in his works of science fiction.12 It is probably because evolution formed the basis of theories of philosophical naturalism like Haldane's, which had become the dominant secular world view, that Lewis agreed with Acworth in regarding it "as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives."

Exactly.

Ann Coulter made the same general observation and was excoriated by the FReeper Darwinist priesthood.

[hosepipe]

[ Note that by saying evolution theory takes over a "going concern," Lewis acknowledges it is not an origin of life hypothesis. As he notes, evolution theory has nothing to do with metaphysics or theology -- and yet seemingly it has become a "religion" to many of its devotees. Go figure! ]

So true.. but a "mindset" needs a base.. call it religion.. Some do call it that, others balk at the term religion... I see people as needing a base for their mindset.. But then there are others that do not need logical progression to their mindset, call them liberals.. Evos do need logical progression.. and can easily morph evolution into a religious form.. not all but some of them..

People are so damned complicated... could be why God created humans to evolve to drive the "devil" NUTZ.. d;-)

[mjolnir]

Most people who are trained in a subject don't resent at all an amateur questioning them and even offering a contribution to the field, but an ignorant and arrogant amateur is just intolerable.

Sometimes that's the case, (probably more) often not.

C.S. Lewis's own life certainly provides good evidence for this-- one need only look at the vast gulf between the attention his work on, for example, the history of science ("The Discarded Image") and Milton ("Preface to Paradise Lost") deserves in academia and the attention it gets.

[Matchett-PI]

This is nother observation she made which was the same as Lewis'- just using different words:

"I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true." ~ C. S. Lewis

"No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution."

~ Ann Coulter -- P.277 Godless

[Matchett-PI]

I like the selections on your profile page.

[PGalt]

We were all created. Many devolve.

[curiosity]

"If evolution is true, then God created evolution."

If she really believes that, why did she spend so much time attacking evolution with old, discredited and dishonest arguments?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the excerpt and the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Note that by saying evolution theory takes over a "going concern," Lewis acknowledges it is not an origin of life hypothesis. As he notes, evolution theory has nothing to do with metaphysics or theology -- and yet seemingly it has become a "religion" to many of its devotees. Go figure!

Indeed. The theory of evolution did not address abiogenesis/biogenesis - but as "justification" to the metaphysical naturalists, the abiogenesis is presumed. Very sad.

[blowfish]

If she really believes that, why did she spend so much time attacking evolution with old, discredited and dishonest arguments?

To sell books...

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you for your insights!

[Matchett-PI]

"Note that by saying evolution theory takes over a "going concern," Lewis acknowledges it is not an origin of life hypothesis. As he notes, evolution theory has nothing to do with metaphysics or theology -- and yet seemingly it has become a "religion" to many of its devotees. Go figure!"

As a result, most non-scientists confuse the religion of "scientism, with science.

Science needs better PR people.

The religious fervor that is evident among evolution's most vocal proponents (admitted atheists like Dawkins, et.al.), is the big turn-off.

That "turn-off" is what prompted Lewis to write this:

"..What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."

02/28/2006 Quote: "....[Lewis] also did not accept evolution in which God had no part. Whether he thought God's role in evolution should be discernable through science itself is less certain, but most of his commentators I've read say no. Had modern ID arguments been presented to him, I think he would have considered them carefully, but I doubt he would have embraced them or used them in his own public writing and speaking.

As for God's extraordinary supernatural work that affects the natural world, I like Richard L. Purtill's way of stating it in "C.S. Lewis's Case for the Christian Faith" (Harper and Row, 1981, paperback 1985) - on p. 61 of the paperback edition Purtill writes: "The scientist, of course, as scientist, must ignore the possibility of miracles, just as the lawyer, as a lawyer, must ignore the possibility of a presidential pardon for his client ..."

And on p. 62: "Scientists, as such, have no concern with miracles, for they cannot predict them, bring them about, or draw any conclusions about the future course of nature. A miracle is supernatural, and therefore of no scientific interest."

As for God's ordinary work "within" nature, I like the way Hewlett and Peters put it in Theology and Science, Vol . 4, No. 1, p. 1, 2006: "God has a purpose for nature, even if the methods of scientific research cannot discern purpose within nature."

"Who is the modern-day Lewis? Alistair McGrath? John Polkinghorne? My pro-ID friends point to Phillip Johnson, Alvin Platinga, or William Dembski, but I don't think Lewis would have disdained theistic evolution as have those ID proponents. Lewis would not have disdained pro-ID folks either, but I also don't think he would have joined them." ~ Charles F. Austerberry, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology - Creighton University, Omaha, NE

[Matchett-PI]

You're welcome!! :) bttt

[Taliesan]

Scientists, as such, have no concern with miracles, for they cannot predict them, bring them about, or draw any conclusions about the future course of nature. A miracle is supernatural, and therefore of no scientific interest."

Exactly. I believe in miracles, but if I were a scientist I would have to assume no miracles, then proceed.

Of course, as a person (which is a bigger category than the category "scientist"), the assumption of no miracles is a philosophical position, not just a working principle.

It just seems to me that many of our creationists want scientists to somehow include God in their studies (as if.), and many scientists talk as if their scientific work is the sum of their personal interaction with the universe.

Impoverished on both sides.

[labowski]

bookmark

[Matchett-PI]

bttt for a GREAT post!!

[Fester Chugabrew]

Bump for later.

[Matchett-PI]

BTW ~ I love the quotes you have on your profile page. The order in which you have placed the two below, is perfect.

If one doesn't have the vocabulary mentioned in the first, one will not understand what is meant by what is said in the second.:

"We do think in words, and the fewer words we know, the more restricted our thoughts. As our vocabulary expands , so does our power to think....If we limit and distort language, we limit and distort personality."

Madeleine L'Engle: A Circle Of Quiet, p.149

"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts...[he] ascribes all his failures to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy."

H.L. Mencken