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:
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)"