BroJoeK: 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: There is no disconnect in logic with respect to the writer’s segue from Lewis to “fiendish aim” of “another spirit.”
First, note that Lewis did not refer to Evolution as a white lie, a small lie, a fib, or just any garden variety falsehood. No, he specifically described Evolution as the “radical and central lie in the whole web of falsehood... “ This is a serious allegation. Evolution, according to Lewis, is a lie of the greatest magnitude. It is a Big Lie, not a small fib, but a Big Lie.
Second, Lewis definitely believed in the devil:
“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or magician with the same delight” (C.S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letter. 1941, p. 3).
This is a critical point for two reasons. First, because Lucifer became the devil as the result of his fall. If evolutionary religion with its inverted exegesis is true then Lucifer never fell, hence is not the devil. Second, as the devil is the father of the lie, especially the Big Lie, it stands to reason that he is the devilish “other spirit” of the “fiendish aims” and “diabolical purposes.”
BroJoeK: 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: Lurking behind ‘scientific’ evolutionary religion is neo- Gnostic hatred of Yahweh, the evil demiurge and inept creator of bad matter.
Modern Gnostic pantheist religion is a syncretic, dualistic, evolutionary religion holding that divine sparks, “reason,” or pneuma, for example, inexplicably fell from being as one with the one-pantheist substance of the ‘good god’ or Gnostic pleroma into evil matter where they are entombed within evil apish-humanoid bodies.
In “The Pagan Temptation,” the eminent Catholic scholar and historian Dr. Thomas Molnar writes that from Plato to Plotinus it was held as axiomatic that the fall of divine sparks into the material realm was either inexplicable or explained as punishment. (p. 27)
The Genesis account of creation ex nihilo was repugnant to ancients for much the same reason it is repugnant to modern evolutionary religionists. This is because if true it means that matter was of God’s creation and did not pre-exist creation as a separate and evil principle, said Molnar. To modern evolutionary theists it also means that if true then Yahweh is not responsible for death, suffering and other evils but rather the devil and fallen men are.
The Incarnation was utterly repulsive to ancients because if true meant the Divinity had incarnated within a body and this was unthinkable because matter and material bodies were evil.
The same disgust of the Incarnation and the human body is held by modern evolutionary religionists whose view of depersonalized man as the genetic spawn of apes (see your own vast display of human & ape skulls), and worse, a misery-inducing meat machine. This view holds that the material brain’s function is determined by reptile-ape genetics, thus ‘reason’ (divine spark, essence, pattern, pure spirit) is constrained by evil grey matter, genes and body fluids.
Whereas neo-Gnostic ‘scientific’ evolutionary materialism teaches that everything is in continuity with void, matter and evolutionary energies working in and through matter, its Eastern-influenced New Age counterpart (i.e., Teilhard’s New Christianity) teaches that everything is in continuity with spiritualized prakriti matter and energy.
In the Hindu Vedanta (from which Teilhard drew inspiration) and Sankhya systems prakriti stuff is the material substance from which the universe and all beings evolve. D.L. Johnson elaborates:
“The whole of the universe evolved out of the basic material stuff...Prior to evolution into what things are today, matter was inert, undifferentiated, quiescent...Each individual human being is part of the cosmic process which began some time ago and will continue as a process...The human being is tied to the world of evolving matter. Each person becomes a person as part of a determined evolutionary process.” (The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. Dr. Henry Morris, p. 224)
Darwinism is not true science but a devilish gnostic myth said the eminent philosopher of science, Dr. Wolfgang Smith (b. 1948):
“As a scientific theory Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living things created themselves, which in essence is a metaphysical claim...Thus...evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb...It is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being (soul/spirit); for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of deprecating ‘God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.’ It perpetuates the venerable Gnostic tradition of ‘Jehovah bashing.” (From Old Gnosticism to New Age I, Alan Morrison, SCP Journal Vol. 28:4-29:1, 2005, pp. 30-31)
For the soul, who in his rebellion against Jehovah, has emancipated himself from his creator, evolutionary religion is the Gnostic ‘magic-science’ of ‘transformism’ ending in reabsorption into the ‘divine’ one substance.
spirited irish:
"Evolution, according to Lewis, is a lie of the greatest magnitude.
It is a Big Lie, not a small fib, but a Big Lie." Except, of course, that it's not.
Basic evolution is a simple scientific theory built on two confirmed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
So, it's inconceivable to me that this simple theory is what CS Lewis meant by "evolution" when calling it a "radical and central lie".
I would have to presume Lewis was referring to something quite different, and indeed, he immediately tells us exactly what that is (your post #183):
"...it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
Please, please note that what offended Lewis so greatly as to use such strong language is not evolution theory itself, but rather the fanatical attitudes of it defenders.
Indeed, if we remember that at the time, 1951, the whole world was still in shock and horror over the deaths of tens of millions murdered in the name of a Darwinian "super-race".
So Lewis was not writing theoretically, or esthetically, or even logically, but overwhelmingly emotionally in horror at what "fanatical attitudes" had just done.
That's why I think, were Lewis alive today, he might listen to all the arguments and facts and decide as I believe that evolution is a confirmed theory which represents just one tool in our Creator G*d's creation tool box.
spirited irish: "Lurking behind ‘scientific’ evolutionary religion is neo- Gnostic hatred of Yahweh, the evil demiurge and inept creator of bad matter."
Sorry, but I can't even translate that sentence into normal English, and so it must surely be rubbish of the worst sort.
The real truth of the matter is that nothing "lurks behind" any scientific theory except the original Thomasian distinction between theology derived from the Bible and natural-philosophy derived from our senses.
If anybody injects their own personal religious ideas into science, that is only them speaking, not science itself.
Tell me, please, why is that so hard for you to grasp?
spirited irish: "Modern Gnostic pantheist religion is a syncretic, dualistic, evolutionary religion holding that divine sparks..."
I'll take your word for it, but none of that has anything to do with science.
Again, I'll recommend, if you wish to clear your mind of endless rubbish and nonsense, start with St. Thomas Aquinas:
Shorter Summa
spirited irish: "To modern evolutionary theists it also means that if true then Yahweh is not responsible for death, suffering and other evils but rather the devil and fallen men are."
I think the theological answer may relate to the fact that life without a God-given soul is unaware of its own future death...
But here we simply must confront the fact that the fossil record is just that: a record of life and death dating back hundreds of millions of years.
To claim otherwise is to fly in the face of all reason, so let me gladly give the last, very famous, words to another great Doctor of the Church, St. Augistine of Hippo, writing circa 420 AD:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men....
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (pp. 42-43)"