Intelligent design hypothesis-conclusion of reflections

Intelligent design hypothesis-conclusion of reflections

After posting a few reflections on ID over the last month or so, I'd like to conclude for now with these thoughts.

Scientific endeavor is about hypothesis, measurement and testing. It always begins with a problem or question, and it should be a worthy one. A philosopher whose name escapes me (Popper?) said that doing research into the cubic volume of books in a library would be a theoretical subject for study, but pointless. Agreed. Not all research is worthwhile. But big questions about origins are worth asking, and we had better get the answers right since one of the options floating around out there is that we have a creator to whom we are accountable and who plans to bring us into judgment in eternity. Surely as the Christian philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal suggested in his 'wager', if that option is even anywhere near the table we had better take it very seriously? We ought at least not be willing to be thrown off the track by bluster, censorship and slogans.

As the guitarist Joe Satriani sang in 'I Believe'

'I've been out walking, for hours.

got something on my mind.

how did we get here

where are we going?

and why is life so hard?'

Fair questions, and old ones. We exist, our existence in this astonishing universe and marvelous planet seems very improbable but nevertheless here we are. we had to have originated somehow-so was it God or was it Chance? Its a question worth asking, and getting the right answer matters. As Dr Vij Sodera says (see link below) 'It doesn't matter what you believe as long as what you believe is true.'

It's probably true to say from anthropological studies and history that most humans since the beginning of humanity have assumed that we have a creator. Belief that the universe and its inhabitants were created by atoms sticking together whether entirely accidentally or through some impersonally 'life-force' (deism) go back to the ancients. I came across the idea that we had formed from atoms in Marcus Aurelius and I understand that Epicurus was an atheist who accepted some form of evolution. 

But obviously the idea was developed by Darwin in his 1859 book 'Origin of Species' that humans and other life forms developed by natural selection acting very slowly on naturally occurring variations and became known as the theory of evolution. And it is clear, notwithstanding the contradictions of professing Christians who say that molecules to man evolution is compatible with biblical Christianity, that the theory of evolution explains away our existence without recourse to a Great Maker or creator. In my opinion that has always been its purpose.

So what of ID? Clearly ID does not exist in a vacuum, it is primarily an  attempt by mainly (although not exclusively) Christian believers to falsify evolutionary theory by using the scientific method. Let's not be coy about this-but this is NOT an admission that ID arguments are inadmissible because they are tainted by the motives of their advocates, since CLEARLY the advocates of evolution are equally open to a charge of wanting materialism/atheism to be true.

to summarise

1) The intelligent design (ID) hypothesis is not religious. If its advocates have religious or philosophical motivations, then so equally do evolution advocates. Similarly, if ID has metaphysical implications, so equally does evolution theory. It is therefore NOT LEGITIMATE to exclude consideration of ID arguments and questions by smearing them as creationism in disguise.

2) ID makes observations and asks questions about structures in the natural world, particularly nanomachinery and information in living cells.

3) ID posits that unguided evolutionary mechanisms could not possibly have made the living things that we observe, and that unguided molecule to man evolution by natural selection acting on random mutations is therefore falsified. (*)

4) ID also notes, using similar arguments to Lyell and Darwin (the present is the key to the past) that we can observe the process and results of purposeful design today. Applying the lessons learned from studying design today, we find that living things share aspects of devices and structures that we know from direct observation were designed and made. We therefore deduce that the living things which we did not see originate were most likely designed by a superior intelligence. We deduce this on the grounds that we know from direct observation that complex, purposeful structures with numerous working parts routinely arise from intelligent design but are never seen to arise from unguided processes as evolutionists claim must have happened in the unobservable distant past.

I could go on but will leave it there for now.

Intelligent design  was a given for the Psalmist (e.g. Psalm 19:1 'the heavens are telling the glory of God') and the Apostle Paul (Romans 1: 8-22 where he argues that the divine nature is obviously seen through the things that have been made).

Going beyond the intelligent design hypothesis, the bible believing Christian notes that we have good reasons for believing that the God of Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel etc is the creator and has spoken to us, most notably and finally through His Son Jesus, who was raised from the dead and is coming again to judge the living and the dead. This Jesus and His Apostles repeatedly warned about false teachers and false prophets who would come particularly in the last days before the end of the world and would lead many astray. Paul wrote to the church at Colossae (Col 2:8)

'Take care that no one takes you away by force, through man's wisdom and deceit, going after the beliefs of men and the theories of the world, and not after Christ:'

I'd like to leave this discussion on ID there. For more information the UK centre for ID and the excellent book by Dr Vij Sodera which comprehensively documents the scientific evidence against evolution 'One Small Speck to Man: The Evolution Myth.'

Intelligent design basically shows, using scientific arguments and facts, why evolution theory doesn't work. Ask yourself, why is ID routinely vilified, misrepresented and censored in the main stream media? Ask yourself if you have ever seen a TV programme consider the arguments being put forward in support of the ID hypothesis. No, we are just constantly bombarded with evolutionist propaganda.

God or Chance? This is much too important to be left to the people who tell society what to think. If ID can be falsified by empirical science, for example by demonstrating a meaningful new structure self assembling without design input, then let it be so falsified. But if ID is being shouted down and suppressed by arrogant establishment bullies, then maybe consideration could be given to the possibility that evolution is an elaborate deception promoted and sustained by powers who want to stop you thinking about Christianity perhaps being true. If it is, then we will be giving account to God for our wrongdoing, including our culpable unbelief, sooner than we think.

(*) it is conceded that many ID advocates including Michael Behe, accept many aspect of evolution including long ages and a common ancestor, hence my carefully qualified description of evolution, a word that is claimed to mean many different things. I think Behe is wrong to accept long ages and common descent, but that does not invalidate the facts and arguments set out in his books and lectures.

Is intelligent design religion: how do we define religion?

To progress the discussion about the question 'Is intelligent design religion?' we need a definition of religion. But how can we get one that isn't biased?

For those who get their ideas about religion in the form of short memorable slogans from Brian Cox, Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, there is no problem. Religion is mumbo jumbo bronze age fairy tale delusional nonsense for losers without a shred of evidence and the cause of most of the evil in the world and has been disproved and displaced by science. But what about those of us who would like to think calmly and rationally about the subject?

my Oxford Reference Dictionary defines religion as 

'1) Belief in a superhuman controlling power, especially in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship; the expression of this in worship . 

2) A particular system of faith. 

3) A thing that one is devoted to. 

4) Life under monastic vows 
(Latin religion-obligation, bond, reverence.

Well that is interesting. Evidently the Dictionary was put together by men (and/or women) who like me are fallible and may have differences of opinion, so the above cannot be claimed as absolutely definitive. It seems reasonable, if not absolutely clear cut. Fair enough, the great Oxford scholar C S Lewis wrote a book (The Four Loves) about the 4 different Greek words that can be translated 'love' and their different meanings. As Einstein is reported to have said, 'Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.' Reality isn't always easy to comprehend and we should not violate reason and stifle enquiry by oversimplification, let alone in pursuit of a partisan agenda. I have a partisan agenda, perhaps readers (if any) have one too. Dawkins openly does, he wants to eliminate religion (including, perhaps especially, Christianity which he compares to child abuse, cancer and a virus). See 'confounding factors.

Christianity is a religion under definitions 1-3 (but not IMO 4) above. I'm a Christian, so I am (or try to be) 'religious' in the sense that I believe in, worship and seek to obey and follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth. But as soon as I say that, someone will quite reasonably ask 'What kind of Christian? Catholic? Eastern/Russian/Greek Orthodox? Protestant? And if the latter, what species of Protestant?' And I can respond to this, but not right now. Thousands of books have been written about the differences between different sects of Christianity, but that's not what I'm writing about here.

Religion: 'A thing that one is devoted to'

I note with interest the 3rd definition above 'A thing that one is devoted to'. This would appear to be capable of including various human philosophies and other objects of desire and perceived worth, even football or music. The question 'Is Atheism/materialism eligion?' is raised occasionally, and of course the proper response is 'it depends on how you define materialism and religion.' My Dictionary defines materialism as

'1) The tendency to prefer material possessions and physical comfort to spiritual values. 
 2) The theory that nothing exists but matter and its movements and modifications.'

Materialism: theory, philosophy, fact or religion?

Once again, I do not claim that any dictionary is absolutely reliable, but am interested to note that in 2 above materialism is called a theory. I would call it a philosophy, but I find that many of its followers consider it an established fact. More than a fact, the very ground and nature of our being. Anyway, can we consider materialism to be a religion?  Clearly it is not belief in a supernatural being, quit the reverse. It is a belief that there is no supernatural being. But materialism (which is basically another name for atheism) is clearly '2) A particular system of faith and  3) A thing that one is devoted to.

Do we ever deceive ourselves?

Atheists in my experience tend to be touchy when accused of BELIEVING in atheism. They reply that they have no beliefs but simply accept the findings of science. They have an absence of belief in God or gods for the same reason they do not believe in unicorns or fairies, that they have seen no evidence for these things. (*) They would believe in God if they were presented with compelling evidence, they say. Obviously their world view compels them to say that, they can hardly say that they would continue to refuse to believe if they saw good enough evidence. But how could we test that assertion? Sometimes we say things that we feel we ought to say in order to preserve out high self esteem and impress others, but maybe sometimes we are lying to ourselves. 

Christian apologists and preachers like G K Chesterton, C S Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Ken Ham, John Piper and others would say that there is plenty of evidence if you look at it in an unbiased manner (see earlier post on confounding factors) but that no evidence will convince someone of something that he is determined not to believe.

Let me cut to the chase. every country has a criminal prosecution system of some kind. Why? Why do we need lawyers to prosecute and also to defend accused people? For the very simple reason that when people are in the wrong and facing sanctions, they lie, lie and lie again to evade facing their responsibilities. Same for politicians. The idea that people are routinely persuaded by good evidence when they don't want to be is.....unsupported by evidence.

When 2 men disagree, one of them at least must be wrong

But how can we know which is wrong and which is right? Its easy if we just say 'The one who agrees with me is right' but can we be more objective than that? Look at a Muslim and a Christian arguing. One of them (at least) must be wrong, but neither will change his mind. Look at a Catholic and a Protestant arguing about whose interpretation of the teachings of Jesus is correct. One must be wrong, but rarely is either persuaded by arguments. Atheist versus theist: same thing again. If you think I'm wrong, Dear Reader, then you have to ask yourself the question 'Why does this apparently educated person persist in believing nonsense which has been refuted many, many times?'. Fair question, why do you think I believe poisonous nonsense despite the evidence? But can you then find the wit and grace to apply the same reasoning to yourself and the position you hold? Oh but you don't need to, do you, because your beliefs are all supported by mountains of overwhelming evidence, aren't they? Obviously that would not apply to everyone, but it describes some fairly IMO.

Anyway, clearly the task of finding an agreed, clear and reasonable definition of 'religion' is not quite as simple as some would like to make it. But as we can't progress this discussion without a definition, why not go with

'1) Belief in a superhuman controlling power, especially in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship; the expression of this in worship . 

Suits me. For the purpose of the discussion 'Is intelligent design religion?'

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><<><><>

PS the question of religion and good and evil is often raised. Too big and too interesting a subject to deal with as a postscript to this discussion which is about the question 'Is intelligent design religion?' but I'll very briefly address Christopher Hitchens' famous question 

'Can you tell me of any good deed which could be done by a person of faith but not by an atheist?' 

Hitchens evidently thought this was an incredibly powerful anti-religious question, because as set the answer is clearly 'no'. But, as his brother Peter said 'It's a duff question.'

to address the question, 2 questions and an observation about measurement.

1) What do you mean by 'good'?

2) Why are you so sure that atheism isn't a 'faith'?

3) 'could' versus 'would'. In other words, potential versus performance. What might happen versus what does happen. If you are into science and evidence, we are not interested so much in what might theoretically happen, but what actually happens in the real world and can be MEASURED. Not anecdotes or questions designed so that only one answer is possible but careful measurement with confounding factors taken into account.

More on this later.

(*) Oddly, many atheists are Marxists despite the evidence of misery, tyranny, poverty, environmental degradation and war produced by that particular godless philosophy when put into power in countries like China, Russia and North Korea. When I was approached by a Socialist Worker Party man with their magazine, I said 'No thank you, Marxism has failed.' He sneered at me 'It's never been tried.'

How deep our denial can run when the evidence is against something that we really desire to believe in?

Is Intelligent Design religion? part 1

Is Intelligent Design religion? part 1

It is difficult to have a conversation around God, religion, creation, evolution or intelligent design (whatever we mean by any of those terms) without stale clichés and slogans being deployed. The 'machine gun' tactic is often used, throwing up to 10 quick fire bold assertions and complex questions in a couple of sentences. The questions can usually be addressed, but one at a time, whereas a well designed and witty slogan can raise 3 or 4 key issues in a dozen syllables.

One of the stalest and cheapest slogans in popular use is 'Intelligent Design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.' Another is 'Evolution is science, creationism is religion.' There are many others, including the crassly ignorant and irrelevant 'Michael Behe got his ass whipped at Dover.' Incidentally, the real truth about the Dover trial is a lot more interesting than the myth that is usually copied, including the fact that activist Judge John Jones violated the US Constitution by ruling on a matter of religion, but that's another story.

Slogans and clichés may carry some truth, (*) or they may even helpfully simplify a complicatede issue and help us understand something difficult, even if imperfectly. But they can mislead, distract, obfuscate or tramline our thinking and stall exploration. They may also be deliberately used by propagandists in order to mould the opinions and actions of others for their own purposes. Of course both sides in any disagreement can do this, and deny they have done it, even deny it to themselves. Since none of us is neutral, we may both use these tactics and be deceived by them.

Having changed political and religious allegiances more than once, I can look back on stuff I used to accept as self evident and see how I was believing half truths and untruths what 'The System' had primed me to believe, and in some cases I can see how it was done. And I wonder what I currently believe, knowingly or unknowingly, that I will discover in future isn't so-and i must think this because I am certain that I can see others who are in error but don't believe they are, so I must look to my own errors. Anyway, back to the question at the top of the page- Is Intelligent Design religion?

If we are going to address the issue as sceptical, free thinking truth seekers willing to follow the evidence where it leads, even out of our comfort zones, we must begin by assuming that we might be misled, not least by our own preference about what OUGHT to be true. Could we be wrong? Scientists are supposed to ask that all the time. The next step is to define the terms. then we can consider the case on its merits AND consider the opposite case. So before even addressing the question I believe it is fair and necessary to raise the equal and opposite question, is evolutionism religion?

Is evolutionism religion?

Well, is it? The question may at least be put, although as I said above, before we can consider the question we must define our terms or else we are just trying to use a piano to mend a puncture in a bicycle tyre, a futile exercise. Note my use of the term 'evolutionism', which I am aware causes offence to some. I use this term to denote the acceptance of molecules to man evolution over billions of years from Big-Bang derived space dust by impersonal forces, particularly natural selection acting on random mutations (I avoid the term 'belief' here to avoid distraction). I believe this is a fair definition, but when I use it, immediately the objections come flying.

'Evolution is nothing to do with how the cosmos originated or how life began!'

'Evolution is about change over time!'

'Evolution is about changes in gene frequency in a population.'

'Evolution can be clearly seen in plant breeding.'

and, above all

'You don't understand evolution.'

And these objections, all of which I hear often, are only about DEFINITIONS! We are still nowhere near analysing truth claims about any part of the thing itself. See what I mean about how difficult it can be to have a reasoned discussion? To even start one?

Anyhow, I mean to post several short discussions over the next month or so considering the linked questions-Is Intelligent Design religion/ and 'Is evolutionism religion?' 

Feel free to comment, comments here are not moderated or censored, unlike the atheist page I was deleted and blocked from recently without warning for making a critical comment.

(*) As C S Lewis wrote in 'The Last Battle' 

" The enemy made his lie stronger by mixing a good deal of truth with it."

Water on Earth-where did it come from?

So where did the water on Earth come from?

I listened to a brief item early morning on Radio 4 last week with an interviewer and scientists talking about water in space. The context was the recent flooding in England and the water cycle, and the question came up about the total amount of water on earth.  The interviewer asked the scientist (sorry I wasn’t able to listen again and forget the name) how water came to be in the first place. It’s a question worth asking.

He said there were ‘... 2, maybe 3, theories’ about where the water came from. The first was that ‘when the earth and moon were formed by a planet the size of Mars smashing into a collection of rocks’ the water was present in the rocks and leaked out or something to form the sea. The second was that the water arrived in comets. (That would be an awful lot of comets, given how very few are seen-ever- let alone how few crash into the earth. Do any? And what about collateral impact damage from crashing comets? But we always have the appeal to 'deep evolutionary time' to sort out issues like that-ED.) The third, which he seemed rather vague about, was that the water had come out of volcanic magma. Or maybe the water came from asteroids. Whatever.

 

The interviewer appeared to share my feelings about the level of explanatory power of this stuff. She said ‘So we don’t have a clue then?’ He was unable to find a response to this and the item ended. It seemed to me that the scientist had merely reeled off a list of known celestial objects and said 'Any of them could have done it...although we have no evidence at all.'

There was no consideration of the possibility that the planet had been created by a superior being in something like its present form with water and other necessities to support organic life. This possibility was not mentioned, even to dismiss it. This demonstrates a pretty good example of  ‘the philosophical assumption of materialism’ by means of which any discussion about origins begins by axiomatically excluding the possibility of divine action. This assumption is understood to be too basic to need stating. 

n  I thought I’d do a little bit of research, and Googled on ‘origin of water’. Wikipedia came up first and began by saying

‘The origin of water on Earth, or the reason that there is clearly more water on the Earth than on the other planets of the Solar System, has not been clarified. There are several acknowledged theories as to how the world's oceans were formed over the last 4.6 billion years.’

 

I’m not going to quote from the article in detail or argue against its assumptions, but it certainly contains conflicting and contradictory ideas and illustrates the lack of evidence and indeed calls for citations. Evidence. Lack. Of.

The next item to come up was from the Smithsonian mag and included the following paragraph

“Water is so vital to our survival, but strangely enough, we don’t know the first thing about it—literally the first. Where does water, a giver and taker of life on planet Earth, come from? When I was in junior high school, my science teacher taught us about the water cycle—evaporation from oceans and lakes, condensation forming clouds , rain refilling oceans and lakes—and it all made sense. Except for one thing: None of the details explained where the water came from to begin with. I asked, but my teacher looked as if I’d sought the sound of one hand clapping.” (my bold-ED)

The author went on to state standard Big Bang theory, which has been summarised by creationists as ‘Once upon a time there was nothing, then the nothing became unstable, exploded, and made everything.’ Crude though this might be, I still think it is fair to ask where the 'something' came from, and how the laws of physics which as we all know are VERY precisely fine tuned for life came to be, and how you get order from a explosion. Anyway, we were told that water was made in the stars which earlier made themselves from the stuff thrown out in the 'Big Bang’. And then the water the stars made somehow got dumped on Earth and stayed there. Why it didn't all boil off into space wasn't explained, although no doubt some Darwinian 'might have's could be produced.

This 'maybe...could have been...probably did...must have done....' account of water's origin seems to me rather less satisfactory, less probable and to depend on more unseen and untestable entities (Occam's Razor) that the Genesis account of creation. And again, we return to the (usually unstated but always present) philosophical assumption of materialism. This essentially runs that there must be a materialistic explanation, however improbable and even if we have conflicting evidence and absolutely no idea what it is, because it MUST NOT have been God. This assumption was evident in the radio conversation that started me on this piece. 

A few other Googled 'origin of water' items made similar broad assertions about the origin of water on Earth and admitted to general ignorance. One on UCL suggested a different theory that water atoms has been present attached to the various bits of space dust that accreted together to form the Earth. The item mentions that Professor Nora de Leeuw had taught the standard theories of origin of water on Earth for years but increasingly seen that they did not fit the evidence, so developed a new theory which apparently is supported by some computer models.

Of course as with all origins science, it is not possible to test this theory one way or the other. Computer models are just that, however well designed they inevitably depend on inputs and assumptions. They can never re-create the original conditions or repeat unique historical events. They certainly can't rule out the creation of a mature cosmos, solar system and Earth at a moment in history consistent with the biblical genealogies (around 4,000 BC).

On the latter point, I don't want to go off at length about the age of the Earth today beyond repeating that (A) due to the shortage of time machines, all dating methods are based on assumptions about the distant past that we can't validate by repeatable testing, and (B) a deity of the power and wisdom of the One described in the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures 'could have' (if I may borrow that favourite Darwinian term) spoken into being the cosmos, Earth, sea and all that is in them in 6 days. If this happened then the cosmos and Earth, like mature trees, a breathable atmosphere and the first adult human couple, would INEVITABLY have seemed older than 6 days  due to the necessity of being fit for immediate use. Same as the water into wine miracle.

Observing Mars and Venus, our nearest planetary neighbours, is instructive. They are roughly the same size as Earth and not very different in their orbits of the Sun. We now know that neither have liquid water (*) and for various other reasons neither can support life (although we can still enjoy sci-fi written about Mars and Venus in earlier years-especially C S Lewis' brilliant Ransom trilogy). Conditions on Earth are VERY special in many ways, not least in the presence of large amounts of liquid water. Water is only liquid (i.e. not steam or ice) in a very narrow temperature range, one of many 'Goldilocks factors' pointing to design. Our planet certainly looks as if it was designed to support carbon based life including humans. Why is this possibility never considered in media discussions about origins?

 

Just as the Earth looks designed, the various speculations about a non-designed origin also look designed. Designed by the opponents of biblical Christianity to nudge men and women into believing that science has quite properly and by a process of reason and evidence ruled God out of the picture. Not only is this both incorrect and a logical fallacy, but ignores the fact that God has revealed Himself to us not only in nature but also though Israel, the prophets and through Jesus, who rose from the dead.


Why do those who control our mainstream broadcast and print media and education systems struggle so hard to prevent this  possibility even being discussed? In any discussion of origins, the unstated assumption is that God is not to be even considered as a possibility. It is a recurring themes of this blog that the continual repetition of this kind of speculation deliberately builds up the impression that science has disproved God and particularly ruled out creation. Both assumptions are simply not true.

Jesus said ‘I am the water of life. He who drinks of this living water will never thirst again.’ see John’s Gospel 4:10 and 7:37. Water is often used in Scripture as a metaphor for life. Anyone who comes to Jesus in penitent faith will be allowed to drink water from the River of Life (Revelation 22:1.) That is an immeasurably  better prospect than casting around in ever decreasing circles trying to find some explanation other than the one which we have been given in God’s account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

(*) Whether Mars has buried frozen water now and/or liquid water in the past is another matter. I have posted about the 'search for water and therefore evidence suggesting possible life on Mars' hype several times in the past.

PS there is plenty enough water on the planet for a global flood. All you need to do is raise the deep ocean trenches and lower the major mountain ranges and you get the whole planet covered. Speeded up tectonic plate activity could have done this and would also account for past continental drift e.g. America drifting away from Africa etc. Terrifying but plausible given a VERY angry God judging a wicked humanity (Genesis chapters 6 and 7). Jesus and Peter both compared the suddenness (although warned about) and finality of the Noah Flood to that of the coming judgment.

 People laughed about the Flood before it happened. Not subsequently. 'As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the day of the son of Man' Matthew 24:37-44

 

More reflections on C S Lewis and the science versus religion paradigm

Christians from nearly all traditions, Catholic to Calvinist, love and quote the prolific writer and apologist C S Lewis. I say ‘nearly’ all traditions, there are a few who damn him for being a smoker, drinker, friend of the ‘papist’ Tolkien and the very unorthodox Charles Williams. Some who cite him approvingly might not if they had read some of the less orthodox views in his letters, for example on purgatory and prayers to saints. I once read an angry Bible Blogger who cursed Lewis for ‘believing in the Tao’. A more depressing misreading of what Lewis actually wrote about the Tao (a term he used in Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man as a metaphor for the essence of the moral imperatives found in most religions) could hardly be imagined.

Much has been written about Lewis, perhaps too much, but as a long term fan I can see why. Today I want to add a little more to earlier reflections about him and science, including evolution. As far as can be ascertained from what he actually wrote, his view was nuanced but far from fully accepting of Darwinism. This reflection is based on the essay ‘Dogma and the Universe’ from 1943 which is in ‘C S Lewis essay collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church' (Harper Collins, 2000)

This essay addresses the position that Christianity is outdated primitive dogma while science is the active pursuit of truth, always finding out new things that Christianity cannot accommodate. Science, in this view, is beating back ‘superstition’ (i.e. religion) which is withering away. This is the ‘science versus religion’ metaphor, so beloved of dogmatic materialists. As Lewis put it in the first paragraph

‘For it seems to him (the outsider) that if our ancestors had known what we know about the universe, Christianity would never have existed at all....’

Certainly the sceptics of Lewis’ time deployed all the tactics and held all the views which our ‘New’ (actually not so new as any reader of Lewis can see) atheists use. Rubbing shoulders with other Oxford academics daily, Lewis was well aware of the assertions of modern science, quoting from Professor Sir Edmund Whittaker’s Riddell lecture ‘The Beginning and End of the World’ (1942) in which he acknowledged that the fundamental assertion of materialism that’...the world has existed from all eternity...’ had recently been withdrawn, making, as Lewis quipped ‘..contemporary science come into line with Christian doctrine’ (i.e. that the world had a beginning. It is worth noting the big bang theory was initially opposed by some atheists on philosophical grounds as it was thought to point to a creator).

Lewis remarked that people sneer at Christianity because the currently known size of the universe was much larger than was thought by our ancestors were in fact ignorant of what our ancestors actually thought. He wrote that this was ‘a simple historical falsehood. Ptolemy (2) knew just as well as Eddington (3) that the earth was infinitesimal in comparison with the whole content of space.'

He went on to write

‘There is no question here of knowledge having grown until the frame of archaic thought is no longer able to contain it. The real question is why the spatial insignificance of the earth, after being known for centuries, should suddenly in the last century become an argument against Christianity.’

Which brings us to the flat earth slander (which Lewis addresses in more detail in his essay ‘’Religion and Science’.

I was taught at school that until modern times everyone thought that the earth was flat, and that this was (A) because the church taught it because it was in the Bible, and (B) that this false belief held back science. In fact none of the above is true. The flat earth slander was invented in the 19^th century by the American writer Washington Irvine. It caught on like a house on fire. Even Wikipedia, not known for its sympathies for Biblical Christianity, states

‘Irving's writings on Columbus are a mixture of history and fiction, a genre now called romantic history/historical fiction. Irving based them on extensive research in the Spanish archives, but also added imaginative elements aimed at sharpening the story. The first of these works is the source of the durable myth that medieval Europeans believed the Earth was flat. (See Myth of the Flat Earth.)’

And

‘In his biography of Christopher Columbus, Irving introduced the erroneous idea that Europeans believed the world to be flat prior to the discovery of the New World. Borrowed from Irving, the flat-Earth myth has been taught in schools as fact to many generations of Americans.’

Lewis expresses interest both here and in another essay 'Religion and Science' in the speed at which this lie spread and became widely accepted. He observed that he found that the opponents of the Gospel would, like a policeman with a suspect he has arrested who will use anything he says against him, use whatever came to hand as a reason for rejecting faith. 'If the universe was teeming with creatures, that reduced the Christian claim that we are somehow unique to absurdity. On the other hand, ‘if the earth is really unique, then that proves that life is only an accidental by-product in the universe, and so again disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to please.’  Lewis was incredibly prescient about the propaganda tactics of today's atheists, but then again perhaps this is because there is nothing new under the sun and he had to endure the same misrepresentations in his day.

Back to the significance of the size of the universe, CSL wrote ‘Men look on the starry heavens with reverence: monkeys do not. The silence of the heavenly spaces terrified Pascal, but it was the greatness of Pascal that enabled them to do so.’ The universe of the Christian is great and sublime (see Psalm 8, Psalm 19 and Job 38-41) and points us to a Great Maker. Dawkins’ jibes about a ‘poky little mediaeval universe’ is typical of this self-besotted little man.

Lewis concludes that Christians have nothing to fear from an increase in scientific knowledge, but ‘It is those systems which place the whole meaning of existence in biological or social evolution on our own planet. It is the creative evolutionist, the Bergsonian (4) or Shavian (5), or the Communist, who should tremble when he looks up at the night sky.' We should not expect to understand all of God’s creative works, from atom to cosmos, we cannot expect all questions to be answered. Revelation from God is not to satisfy our 'liberal curiosity' but ‘appears to me to be purely practical, to be addressed to the Fallen Man, for the relief of his urgent necessities.’

In other words, as I believe Galileo may have said, ‘Science is about how the heavens go, the Bible is about how to go to Heaven.’

True religion, Lewis argues, is like mathematics. ‘There is a great difference between counting apples and arriving at the mathematical formulae of modern physics. But the multiplication table is used in both and does not grow out of date.’

He finishes the essay by warning us to flee from the wrath to come. Even the best science cannot help us here, but a false view of science may hinder us if it persuades us that science has ruled out God and a coming Judgment. I continue to argue that while being wrong (either way) about creation need not prevent us being reconciled to God, evolutionism is a potent cause of atheism and so therefore may help to keep some people from a saving knowledge of Christ. ‘No possible complexity which we can give to our picture of the universe can hide us from God.’ Citing Revelation20:11 the great polymath and beloved apologist reminds us that ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ we will each stand alone and naked before God, the righteous judge, to receive ‘bliss or horror’ according to how we lived our lives and what we did with Jesus. This, Lewis asserts in a conclusion reminiscent of the final verses of Ecclesiastes (5), is the real business of our life, not the endless pursuit of knowledge but getting right with the God who is our creator and will be our Judge. Wise man and fool, professor or pinhead, we can any of us do this by the means which God has so graciously made available, His beloved Son Jesus.

I hope to return to C S Lewis on science and evolution later. I repeat that I am not ‘claiming’ him as a young earth creationist, just saying that he is no friend to Darwinism and a vigorous and effective opponent of the sad and harmful ‘science equals materialism’ philosophy. I conclude this reflection by agreeing with my brother and sister Christians who (unlike me) accept Darwinism as good science, that getting right with God through Christ matters more than our view of science and origins. My contention is that accepting molecules to man evolution makes people less likely to feel the need to do so, and I suspect that C S Lewis might be on my side regarding that if he had engaged with the debate as it is today. 

(1) 'The Magician’s Twin: C S Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society' edited by john G West (Discovery Institute Press, 2012) is the best study of Lewis on the 'science versus religion' argument I have seen yet.

(2) Ptolemy lived in Alexandria in the second century AD)

(3) Arthur Eddington died in 1944

(4) Henri Bergson wrote a book ‘Creative Evolution’ which is probably the biggest load of impenetrable ravings and balderdash in my collection of research books. It’s as incoherent and rambling as the similar Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s ‘Phenomenon of man’ next to which it sits in my naughty library, but worse written. Incidentally, Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit priest and progenitor of theistic evolutionism) was probably involved if not the main perpetrator of the Piltdown Man Fraud, but that is a story for another day...

(5) Shavian-to do with George Bernard Shaw

(6) Ecclesiastes 12:12-13 'And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.'