Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Evolution News: An Argument from C. S. Lewis for Intelligent Design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

John G. West writes:

November 29. Perhaps best known for his Chronicles of Narnia and works of Christian apologetics including Mere Christianity, Lewis was a first-rate scholar of medieval and renaissance English literature, and a first-rate mind on many topics.

Photo: C. S. Lewis, by Asar Studios/Alamy (Photo by Hans Wild/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images).

As I discuss in my book The Magician’s Twin, Lewis frequently examined the impact of modern science on human life, including debates over evolution and what has become known as intelligent design.

In the waning days of World War II, Lewis published two little-known essays advancing a positive argument for intelligent design: “Is Theology Poetry?” and “Who Was Right — Dream Lecturer or Real Lecturer?” Both essays were published in 1945, although the first was originally delivered as a talk to the Socratic Society at Oxford University in November 1944. The second essay was later republished under the title “Two Lectures.”

“Universal Evolutionism”

According to Lewis in these essays, “universal evolutionism” has schooled us to think that in nature complicated functional things naturally arise from cruder and less complicated things. Oak trees come from acorns, owls from eggs, and human beings from embryos.

But for Lewis, this “modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion” that defies the actual data of the natural world.

In each of the aforementioned cases, complex living things arose from even more complex living things. Every acorn originally came from an oak tree. Every owl’s egg came from an actual owl. Every human embryo required two full-grown adult human beings.

We see the same pattern in human culture. The “evolution” from coracles to steamships, or from one of the early locomotives (the “Rocket)” to modern train engines, requires a cause that is greater than either steamships or train engines. Wrote Lewis: “We love to notice that the express [train] engine of today is the descendant of the ‘Rocket’; we do not equally remember that the ‘Rocket’ springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself — namely, a man of genius.”

Lewis made clear the relevance of this truth for understanding the wonderful functional complexity we see throughout nature: “You have to go outside the sequence of engines, into the world of men, to find the real originator of the Rocket. Is it not equally reasonable to look outside Nature for the real Originator of the natural order?”

An Explicit Argument for ID

This is explicitly an argument for intelligent design, and Lewis implies that this line of reasoning was central to his own disavowal of materialism. “On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not.”

This argument for intelligent design does not in and of itself lead to the Christian God according to Lewis. But it opens the door to considering the alternatives to materialism of “philosophical idealism” and “theism,” and from there Lewis believed that one may well progress to full-blooded Christian theism after further reflection.

Evolution News
Comments
"Is not timeless another way of saying: existing infinitely distant in the past?" JVL, No. Andrewasauber
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: We cannot have material things existing for an infinite sequence of time. So we have to have a first cause which is immaterial and timeless. Is not timeless another way of saying: existing infinitely distant in the past? Are you not accepting the idea of an infinite regress into the past? Kairosfocus says you can't do that. If someone could explain to me how you cannot go step-wise back into the past to infinity but you can have a being which has always existed I'd be very interested.JVL
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Jerry So assume that the entity with the power and knowledge to do so had an objective. The question is why was this particular one chosen?
The answer is in your own comment ...because (the Designer) has an objective . This world is not the objective in itself it's just a tool. A car is just a tool to travel to home or to work or to holiday or...No matter how much you will study the car components you will not find the goals of the owner of the car ...unless the owner wants to share them to you .whistler
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
Jerry @57,
I have no idea how this is relevant especially to ID.
Well, you're the one who raised the question in @39! Silly me, I responded to your question.
I’ll go with the more powerful and knowledgeable creator who knew what he was doing.
I never said God didn't know what he was doing! I said that God CHOSE to create humans "lower" than the angels according to Psalm 8 (and quoted in Hebrews 2). I also mentioned that in the book of Genesis, God described his creation as "good" (in several places) and "very good" (cumulatively).
Aside: never heard of any angels existing in this universe. They supposedly come and go but rarely.
The Bible has a number of passages that report encounters with angels. You might want to read it sometime. There are many people who claim they personally encountered angels, but I don't put a lot of weight in that. However, a relative of mine, an engineer who I respect deeply, told me that he believes in angels after encountering one under miraculous circumstances. The Bible also says that some people encounter angels "unaware" of who/what they are. -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Does the Creator NOT have the power to CHOOSE to create humans “a little lower than the angels”?
I have no idea how this is relevant especially to ID. I’ll go with the more powerful and knowledgeable creator who knew what he was doing. Aside: never heard of any angels existing in this universe. They supposedly come and go but rarely.jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Jerry @52,
Why? Did the creator not have the knowledge or the power?
Does the Creator NOT have the power to CHOOSE to create humans "a little lower than the angels"? Psalm 8:4-6 (literal Greek from the LXX) states:
What is man that you remember him, Or a son of man that you visit him? You lessened him some--a little (lower) than the angels, (With) glory and honor you crowned him; And established him over the works of your hands; All (things) you submitted underneath his feet . . .
-QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Querius
The material involves masses and energies that are finite, not infinite. Infinities are the result of divide-by-zero errors.
True. We cannot have material things existing for an infinite sequence of time. So we have to have a first cause which is immaterial and timeless.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
If this is the only one we have, how does it matter?
It matters because it was chosen. So assume that the entity with the power and knowledge to do so had an objective. The question is why was this particular one chosen?jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @51,
The fact that God is infinite in being is not the same kind of problem as having an infinite chain of material causes.
The material involves masses and energies that are finite, not infinite. Infinities are the result of divide-by-zero errors. What's considered spiritual and what are considered desirable attributes, such as love, peace, joy, kindness, honesty, generosity, compassion, trustworthiness, righteousness, faith, and so on, are not bounded by space and time, nor do they have specific locations in space or in time. Can you measure honesty in grams or compassion in candelas? Do you have to travel somewhere to find them or wait up until exactly midnight on a certain day to obtain a kilogram of kindness? They exist outside of space and time. Just as God who created space-time. -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Presumably, very good is better than good, but less than perfect.
So based on this reasoning, the creator made an inferior world on purpose. Why? Did the creator not have the knowledge or the power?jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Seversky
As I said before, the only reason I see for positing an uncaused first cause is to close out an infinite causal regress, although it is hard to see what you gain by exchanging one infinity for another.
God is a single cause, not an infinite string of them. God terminates the causal regress into a first cause. You see a string of box cars passing by on the railroad track. The box cars do not have the power to move themselves. So, there has to be an locomotive engine moving the whole string. You could say: The box cars move themselves (caused by nothing) They are an infinite string (but impossible to traverse that so they wouldn't appear on the tracks today) Or, the movement terminates in a first cause (a train-engine). What you gain in accepting God as the first cause is a rational termination of an infinite string of causes and you avoid saying that nothing is the cause. The fact that God is infinite in being is not the same kind of problem as having an infinite chain of material causes.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
PM1
The question would then be, what can be reasonably said about this necessary being except that it has the power to bring about or cause at least one universe?
Through metaphysical reasoning we can say more about the necessary being than merely that it had enough power to create one universe. First of all, there cannot be two necessary beings. There can only be one. If there is more than one, then we have a relationship between those two which is contingent. One will be distinguished (different) than the other and therefore greater or lesser, having or lacking something of the other. Where would those differences come from and why are they sustained in an equilibrium (or one being is getting stronger and the other weaker)? We terminate an infinite regress into one cause, not multiple. More than one necessary being would just continue the infinite regress of potentiality changing to actuality. One being is potentially greater than the other and one potentially less - so they change over time. Beings that can change over time have possibilities that can be fulfilled - one can cease to exist entirely. One could absorb all the power of the other. So the necessary being is one. In the same way, the necessary being is the source of all power, since it cannot be dependent on other beings to receive power. So, it not only has the power to create our universe but must have the power to create every possible universe -no matter what properties those universes have. In the same way, anything the necessary being has must be the most complete and perfect since it is not dependent on anything else to gain greater perfection. Therefore, not only does the necessary being have all power, it has all being -- or the fullness and completeness of being itself. With that, it must be immutable, because having all power and all being - it cannot change. It also cannot be constrained by space or time or any contingent thing. One, immutable, all powerful, fullness of being, spaceless, timeless ... And also as you mentioned also, not composed of parts (which would be changeable, contingent elements bound together by something for some reason). Therefore, completely simple. So, just starting with your necessary being, you have a lot of attributes. That's still a Deistic God and you would have to use more reasoning to move towards the perfections of rationality, intention and will (desiring the good of others). But with that, there couldn't be any evil in God at all, since that would be an imperfection in power or being. So we'd add all-good to the list.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Jerry/39
Essential question: Do we live in the best of all possible worlds?
If this is the only one we have, how does it matter?Seversky
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1/27
I agree with the theologically sophisticated responses here to Seversky, but I would also say that C. S. Lewis opened himself up to Seversky’s criticism by talking about “complication” (“more complicated”) in the first place.
I find references to sophisticated theology inevitably calls to mind the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. This is not to diminish the fact that greater minds than mine have grappled with these issues but human beings, if nothing else, are inveterate storytellers. Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings is a sophisticated narrative - although it is far from the only one - yet it is a work of fiction. Sophistication alone is not a guarantee of truth. In fact, I would argue that one of the roots of science is the need to find a means of discriminating between competing narratives.
To understand why God exists, it is sufficient to notice that if we were to begin with the concept of God as an infinitely powerful being and meditate carefully on what that means, it becomes obvious that God must exist and that nothing else can exist apart from God.
As I said before, the only reason I see for positing an uncaused first cause is to close out an infinite causal regress, although it is hard to see what you gain by exchanging one infinity for another. To me, neither is intellectually satisfying and I can't choose between them but what else is there?Seversky
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Jerry @39,
Essential question: Do we live in the best of all possible worlds?
Why is this an/the essential question? If we live in the best of all possible worlds, would you be the best of all possible Jerrys? Engineers typically admit their designs are adequate, good, very good, or excellent based on the specifications, constraints, and compromises they accommodate. In the Genesis account, I noticed that God judged his creation using two descriptive terms "good" and "very good." Presumably, very good is better than good, but less than perfect. -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
PyrrhoManiac1 @37, Nicely articulated! Upright BiPed @38,
. . . this entity used a system of rate-independent tokens and non-integrable constraints in order to specify (among alternatives) the proteins that make life on earth possible — just as predicted.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. What are rate-independent tokens, non-integrable constraints, and what were the predictions? Thanks, -QQuerius
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
So how come He didn’t know Adam and Eve were being lured into eating the Forbidden Fruit?
Another incredibly stupid question. Do you practice asking inane questions?jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Relatd/41
The Catholic Church holds the position that God is the cause of causes. That He is in charge of the development of life. That He works infallibly in His Creation. He literally knows when a sparrow falls.
So how come He didn't know Adam and Eve were being lured into eating the Forbidden Fruit?Seversky
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Andrew at 42, The truth is before pleasing others. We should always speak the truth for ourselves and others. After years of repeating the same thing over and over, secularists have caused confusion. They are offended by other beliefs. By truth itself.relatd
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
"The Catholic Church holds the position..." Relatd @ 40, Indeed, but my friends feel the need for a secular genuflection to Evolution at the same time, to appease their New England liberal neighbors. I'm a Catholic from flyover country/the Midwest, and I don't fall to the Left when getting out of bed. I don't have the cultural hangups. It's a political triangulation, and I find it offensive. lol Andrewasauber
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Andrew at 40, The Catholic Church holds the position that God is the cause of causes. That He is in charge of the development of life. That He works infallibly in His Creation. He literally knows when a sparrow falls.relatd
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Oh, I have educated Catholic friends who think that Evolution applies outside biology, to the Universe (whatever that is) as a whole. Not sure where they get that idea, and why they choose to sustain that specific belief, since it's obviously wrong, and defies the data, as Lewis points out. Andrewasauber
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
We fail to understand what is necessary for the existence we have to be meaningful. Logic will take one some of the way. However, the same logic is necessary in order to understand what is required to make the existence meaningful. Does there have to be doubt for the existence to be meaningful? Will this logic lead to what on the surface looks like contradictory outcomes, that is doubt. But are these seemingly contradictory outcomes not contradictory but actually necessary. In other words what some use to challenge things are actually necessary for a meaningful existence. Aside: the existence of other universes is irrelevant. The one we observe is certainly big enough to incorporate an almost endless variety of options. If a myriad of options are desired, one universe or several will do. My guess, one is enough. Essential question: Do we live in the best of all possible worlds? jerry
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
.
The question would then be, what can be reasonably said about this necessary being except that it has the power to bring about or cause at least one universe?
If one was to suspect that this “necessary being” might also be responsible for the appearance of life on earth, then by way of physical analysis, they would know that this entity used a system of rate-independent tokens and non-integrable constraints in order to specify (among alternatives) the proteins that make life on earth possible — just as predicted.Upright BiPed
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
@35
there is general agreement that you can’t get something from nothing. That being the case, since there is clearly something there must always have been something, even preceding the Big Bang, although we have no idea what. But there’s that infinity again.
I don't quite follow this line of reasoning. Once we accept that "nothing can come from nothing" as a basic principle of metaphysical reasoning, it follows that the only alternative to an infinite causal chain of contingent beings is a necessary being -- something that does not need a cause for its existence because it has always existed and therefore did not begin to exist. One could, I suppose, reject the principle that nothing can come from nothing. But this comes at a high cost. For if one asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing at all, then one cannot explain why the universe has any of the fundamental physical structures that it does. We would need to give up on the principle of sufficient reason (that all facts can be explained). So if we're committed to the principle of sufficient reason, and if an infinite regress of contingent causes is ruled out, then we're left with a necessary being. The question would then be, what can be reasonably said about this necessary being except that it has the power to bring about or cause at least one universe? If we had reason to believe that ours is the only universe that it created, that would allow scope for some theological inquiries. But we do not know if the necessary being created other universes, then it becomes much more difficult to accommodate the speculations of classical theism. It could be, for all we can tell, that the necessary being created other universes that are even more perfect than ours, in ways that we cannot ascertain because our sensibility of what counts as perfect is inseparable from the process that led to our (contingent?) emergence in this universe. So while I think it makes good sense to say that there is a necessary being, and it makes good sense to say that this necessary being is God if by God we mean a being of absolute and unlimited power, I'm less sure that we can salvage classical theism in this way. Or, put more charitably, that's as far as natural reason can take us -- we would need revelation to go any further, and that raises some thorny and perhaps irresolvable questions about the reliability or authenticity of revelation. (Personally I think Kierekegaard was right when he claimed that it takes a leap of faith, going beyond what natural reason can possibly establish, in order to accept a revelation as a revelation, rather than as a hallucination or epileptic episode.)PyrrhoManiac1
November 21, 2022
November
11
Nov
21
21
2022
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
Seversky 35 Agnostic are you? It is unsatisfactory to you, but satisfactory to billions. Logic, reason, evidence and personal experiences support it for these. The universe without absolute truth is unthinkable. Presumably you are in search of truth or yours is a wasted exercise. Uncaused cause = God = Truth Since we have Revelation (from outside the frame), we can be confident that the uncaused cause is the real deal. If we didn't (since we are inside the frame) your position would be more palatable.buffalo
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Buffalo/33
Either we have the uncaused cause or infinite regression. Which one – you pick
The uncaused first cause is as unsatisfactory as the infinite regression. That said, there is general agreement that you can't get something from nothing. That being the case, since there is clearly something there must always have been something, even preceding the Big Bang, although we have no idea what. But there's that infinity again. Maybe there's a third possibility that we haven't thought of yet.Seversky
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Dear Buffalo at 33 Please try to be gentle with our nice Atheist friends Put yourself in their shoes. How would you like it if the basis of your belief system collapsed, and all you could hope for is that nobody would find out. And now the cat is out of the bag. You noted their quandry when you wrote "Either we have the uncaused cause or infinite regression. Which one – you pick". Well, an Atheist cant pick "the Uncaused Cuase". Because that's another name for God. But the Infinite regression began to tank when Big bank was discovered 90 years ago. When that was realized, the Atheists had to fly with infinite regression. AKA a Cyclic Universe. OBig Bang then Big Crunbch then another Big band and another big crunch. In an Infinite regression. Poor guys, that went south when when it was dicovered that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing. That means the universe will keep getting bigger and bigger, so it will never cycle back to a big crunch. That means curtains for the Cyclic Universe. And that menas c urtains for our Atheist friends, poor guys, Uncaused Cause its what the Science says. Uncaused Cause, Fine Tuning, Origin of Life, Irreducible Complexity. Phew. Getting hit by Creationist Science from all sides. Okay, but I say this: No laughing at our Atheist friends. Us Creationists, let's show that we can be good winners.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Seversky 11 Either we have the uncaused cause or infinite regression. Which one - you pick 33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",9 can have its origin only in God. 34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God". Catechismbuffalo
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Here's what Jesus is recorded as having said about God:
But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.” - John 4:23-26 (NASB)
I'd suggest being very cautious about any descriptions or details about the loving creator-genius who created the cosmos and all that it contains. I suspect that no human mind can contain all that the Creator truly is. -QQuerius
November 20, 2022
November
11
Nov
20
20
2022
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply