betty: Dear BroJoeK, who’s quote is this? It doesn’t “sound” like C. S. Lewis’ language at all. [I do not see much use of strictly denotative language in his works: He is a great literary artist who typically employs symbolic language.] I thought, well, if a statement like this exists in C. S. Lewis’ body of work, then I’d likely find it in The Abolition of Man
Spirited: It’s my quote:
“In a letter to a friend, C.S. Lewis writes that he is right in “regarding (evolution) as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives...” However, said Lewis, “it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.” (Letter to Bernard Acworth, Spt. 13, 1951)
In other remarks regarding the central lie, C.S. Lewis said,
“More disquieting still is Professor D.M.S. Watson’s defense. “Evolution itself,” he wrote, “is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)
Darwinism is a lie:
“The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity – omnipotent chance....” (T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal, pp. 101-102, 1975)
As for ‘modern’ evolutionary theory, anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History reveals that Darwin is not its’ originator but rather ancient pagan conceptions of transmigration and reincarnation are. In the introduction to his history of evolutionism Osborn wrote:
“When I began the search for anticipations of the evolutionary theory....I was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C.” (Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, p. xi)
Evolution is a religion, said Michael Ruse. From the beginning it was a religion and this is true of evolution today. (Michael Ruse, former professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, “How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?” National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7, May 13, 2000)
“(Darwinism is) nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion....It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.” (Jonathan Tennenbaum, “Towards ‘A New Science of Life,’ Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, No. 34, Sept. 7, 2001)
The Manchurian Scientist!
I don’t know that we can definitively say that Darwin was a liar, but it is clear that “Darwinism,” as practiced by modern “Darwinists,” is a lie. It was but a short time after Darwin published his interesting (but hardly new) observations, that Marx seized upon Darwin’s observations, much as a drowning men might seize a lifebuoy, as his best hope of salvaging a failed social and economic philosophy. It was the one hope Marx had that he could “scientifically” prove that God did not exist (Tennenbaum’s political-ideological reasons you cite for a failed social and economic Marxist philosophy).
Thanks, spirited, for writing (and thanks for keeping me posted).
I particularly relate to this one:
spirited irish: "It’s my quote:
OK, now let's compare that to your article's sentence above:
So what began as Lewis' polite agreement with his friend, and immediate refocus of discussion on "fanatical and twisted attitudes" of certain "Darwinists", now ends up in the hands of our current article's writer as a rant against the "fiendish aim" and "diabolical purposes" of "another Spirit".
Well, may I humbly submit: that's not what Lewis intended?
spirited irish quoting CS Lewis: "Has it come to that?
Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice.
Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?” (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)
Lewis well knew, certainly, that from its beginning, from the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, as a branch of natural-philosophy, science was designed precisely with that purpose: to provide natural explanations for natural processes.
It's what science does, and if you wish to include a discussion of G*d's role, that's great, but it is not, by definition, "science".
spirited irish: "Darwinism is a lie:
I'd say, rather, that Rosazak is stupid, panic stricken and unfaithful himself if he cannot see the Hand of G*d at work in evolution's allegedly "random" processes.
spirited irish: "As for ‘modern’ evolutionary theory, anthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, longtime director of the American Museum of Natural History reveals that Darwin is not its’ originator but rather ancient pagan conceptions of transmigration and reincarnation are."
Regardless of how ancient certain ideas were, Charles Darwin was the first to express evolution in scientific terms.
spirited irish quoting: "(Darwinism is) nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion....
It has no scientific validity whatsoever.
Darwin’s so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.”
(Jonathan Tennenbaum, “Towards ‘A New Science of Life,’ Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 28, No. 34, Sept. 7, 2001)
In this quote Tennenbaum is simply flailing wildly and irrationally at something he obviously thoroughly misunderstands.
The truth is that basic evolution is a confirmed scientific theory, nothing more & nothing less.
If certain people go crazy in their enthusiasm for -- or condemnation of -- evolution theory, those are both surely pathological reactions that have no bearing on the scientific theory itself.