A few years ago a prominent young-earth creationist lamented Lewis’s attempt in the 1940s to reconcile evolution and Scripture. “I like to think that, had he lived another 20 years,… Lewis would have acknowledged his… error.” It is doubtful that Lewis would have felt comfortable espousing the views of present-day creationists. He always carefully indicated that he opposed evolutionism as a philosophy, not evolution as a biological theory. At the same time his correspondence with Bernard Acworth suggests that he had come in his later years to entertain more doubts about the claims made for organic evolution than his published works indicate.
It seems pretty clear from Lewis’ writings (both early and late) that any doubts he lightly held (as a self-acknowledged non-expert) over the biological theory of evolution were only a function of remaining doubts of the day over large gaps in the actual science and perhaps more seriously in the plausible perception that scientists themselves were perhaps under the sway of Evolutionism as a more insidious philosophy. The lamenting creationists Watson wrote of that wished “Lewis had but lived another 20 years” would probably not have gotten his wish if Lewis had, and most certainly would not have if Lewis were given another 40 or 50 years.
Lewis’ objections (like those of Biologos currently) are against Evolutionism as a philosophy, not against biological evolution as a mere science - which Lewis was theologically happy to let live or die according to its own master: science. And “live” it most certainly has now which Lewis would be most certain to see and acknowledge short of a most astonishing reversal from just about everything and every way he spent his adult life cultivating.
The anti-evolutionary organizations today are probably loath to recognize any distinction between evolution and Evolutionism, and thus are prone to confusion about what concerned Lewis in his later years. In the wider thinking Christian community however, these distinctions are easily recognized and taken into account, and such confusion avoided.
Well, if a historic Adam at the pinnacle of humanity, and a divinely directed evolution are consistent with modern evolutionary theory, perhaps you are right.
In general, yes. They are non-scientists, so there will probably be a few misunderstandings, but from what I read they see no more conflict between Christianity and evolution than they do between Christianity and meteorology. Evolution is a natural process like all others and is treated the same.
Even though I started with a scientific worldview and looked for an understanding of Christianity which fit in that context, I still believe Adam and Eve were real people – not golems of dust and bone in a garden with magical fruit and a talking snake, let alone sole genetic progenitors of the human species, but still real people whom God spoke to as a significant part of the beginning of human beings which are far more than just a biological species. That is an example of the difference between science and theology/philosophy. Science speaks about measurable things like species and not about what it means to be human.
“Pinacle of humanity” is also poorly defined in this case. The story only speaks of our relationship with God which suffered from the fall of A&E until Jesus came. Very strange to refer to that as the “pinacle of humanity.” Jesus would fit that phrase better, don’t you think?
The phrase “divinely directed” also presents problems regarding what exactly is meant. As far as the difference between theism and Deism is concern between a God who is involved as a participant rather than one who simply watches, there is no inconsistency. But to say that the evolutionary process requires divine assistance in order to work (as in ID) will not fly.
It is no different than the everyday Christian experience of God taking an active role in their lives… why should evolution be any different. But neither of these is a matter for scientific inquiry or theory which is about studying the patterns and equations of natural law not trying to fathom the mind of God and His involvement in affairs.
We are ALL reading your mail. Don’t forget your dentist appointment!
Agreed. A lot of people learn the counter-arguments without knowing what it is they are arguing about. Better IMO to understand first, then consider what parts to accept and why.
The evolutionary algorithm simply seeks refined solutions to the challenge which it is given, in this case survival. And it finds millions of answers to that challenge. That is neither of these black white descriptions of absolutely directed nor absolutely undirected. And I dont’ see how the former is required by Christianity, whether in our lives or in the development of the species. That is more of a bad inane habit in the empty blandishments of Christian clergy than in the Bible teachings of Jesus and Paul.
Our experience and theology is simply that God is personally involved in our lives and playing a part in events, not that everything is directed like some sort of poorly written play.
we are just talking about the listed christians in this thread as representative of christian majority opinion, not your interpretation of jesus and paul
none would be onboard with mere survival of the fittest being adequate divine direction, modern evolutionary theory says this is the only direction that happens
In the same way that all of nature is undirected in a scientific sense, yes. I doubt Billy Graham thinks science can determine if God is guiding hurricanes towards specific cities. The same would apply to mutations.
None would be onboard with nothing in nature being divinely directed. The difference is understanding the scope of science and why their beliefs don’t clash with the scientific conclusions within those theories.
We were talking about whether a conflict between evolution and Christianity is inherent, not whether somebody can manufacture such conflicts just because they want to be the ones dictating answers (even if the answers are nothing but a silly “it is mystery” platitude).
Ah… when you said “undirected” you mean “without divine direction”. But of course science doesn’t speak of the divine in any capacity. The only concern for science is that the mechanical process described in the theory is without any direction but survival. Divine direction is a matter for theology not science.
But to be sure I don’t believe in the sort “divine direction” that points to a particular appearance in order to justify racism and similar sorts of prejudices. The only divine direction I see going on would include an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs because God is more interested in a species capable of language, because the communication of abstract concepts makes for a much more fulfilling relationship than creatures obsessed only with food and reproduction.
I doubt it would be fair to expect Lewis to have worked through already all the implications between biological evolution and some of the traditional strands of theology, given that we are still sweating that out here today. It was all fresh for him. What he did seem to remain confidently centered on was an indefatigable belief that no truth discovered by science need be seen as threatening to any healthy theology even including biological common descent. So while he may have personally still held some theology and/or some science that today would be challenged as in need of reconciliation is probably no poor reflection on him, but just a reflection on those earlier days when there was a little more room for doubt as to how really settled the science was.
As to divine direction … yeah that is one healthy vein of faithful discussion today yet too. He kept good company then, and I trust would still have good company now.
Sentences such as " “Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are preserved by a blind, undirected process of natural selection that has no long-term 'goals.”
show the incapacity of people stating it to think logically. “Natural selection” as being selection for survival fitness has the long term goal of sustaining life. If one does not get that one declares ones intellectual bankruptcy. So if you look at a process that selects for sustaining life you should remember what we were told the ground rule to be, its called the word of God, to love your neighbours like your own. In evolutionary terms it means to be of use the system or what is understood as the altruistic gene. After all, genes know they can’t survive if they were selfish as they can’t exist on their own, it is just some humans who do not understand that concept.
As all of nature is undirected I am sure you can give me an example of that and the proof that it is undirected, so undirected that it can not be given a mathematical term describing it’s direction. Remember, you claimed “all of nature”, so everything that can be given a mathematical direction would be by your definition “supernatural” in your scientific sense
No more so than gravity has the long term goal of returning water to the lowest elevation. Natural selection is simply an unavoidable consequence of having limited resources and imperfect replicators. The fitter individuals will necessarily have more offspring than the less fit in the same way water flows downhill. There is no scientifically demonstrable and inherent goal in the process.
The scientific concept of direction and guidance is overt movement to a specific physiological or morphological goal. If multiple independent lineages all developed the same adaptations for flight then we would start to consider guidance. However, what we do see is different adaptations for flight in different lineages (e.g. birds v. bats) which is what we would expect from an unguided process (again, by the definitions of science which are different than definitions within theology).
If memory serves, Darwin once stated that his theory would be seriously undermined if you could find a trait in a species that was only there to benefit another species. I am unaware of any such trait.
I am sure that you are not aware that the only reason you really exist is to aid the propagation of bacteria as you collect the food for them. Bacteria rule the world - if it were not for the reptilians
