Reflections on a new book about C.S. Lewis, science, and society.
The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and
Edited by John G. West
(Discovery Institute Press, 350 pages, $24.95)
We normally associate C.S. Lewis with Christian apologetics, English literature, and the Narnia stories; less so with science and questions about evolution. But as the Discovery Institute’s John G. West points out in The Magician’s Twin, throughout his life Lewis was concerned about the abject submission of culture and politics to the growing authority of science. Lewis respected science, but he rejected the idea that it is the only reliable method of knowledge about the world. He called that error scientism. As for evolution, his skepticism about it increased over the years.
In this anthology, John West and his co-authors gather material primarily from four books by Lewis: Miracles, The Abolition of Man, That Hideous Strength and The Discarded Image. Their findings are enhanced by West’s research into Lewis’s papers and correspondence, now at Wheaton College in Illinois. He also made good use of unpublished annotations and underlined passages in books preserved from Lewis’s own library.
Lewis well understood the cultural dominance of the theory of evolution in his day and was at first reluctant to criticize the theory. He also tended to assume, as so many others have since, that Darwinism was better confirmed than it really was (or is). In fact, since Lewis’s death in 1963, the new findings of molecular biology have made the theory look a good deal less plausible than it did 50 years ago.
In the past, some evolutionists claimed Lewis as an ally. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, a Christian who admired Lewis and was influenced by him, believed that Lewis accepted that “Christians should accept the animal ancestry of humans.” But he neglected to study Lewis’s published comments. Others have openly misrepresented what he believed on the subject.
Lewis was “a thoroughgoing skeptic of the creative power of unguided natural selection,” John West points out, and as the years passed he became increasingly critical.
Lewis further argued (in Miracles) that the human faculty of reason is itself supernatural and that it is impossible to rely on our mental processes if they are the product of the random motion of molecular particles. Belief in materialism is therefore self-defeating. On that point, at least, C.S. Lewis and the British biologist J.B.S. Haldane were in agreement.
Of particular interest are Lewis’s comments in his posthumously published book, The Discarded Image. He notes the shift in recent centuries “from a devolutionary to an evolutionary scheme”; from a cosmology in which it was once considered axiomatic that “all perfect things precede all imperfect things.” That is a quotation from the sixth century philosopher Boethius, who wrote the Consolation of Philosophy, a work widely read in the Middle Ages. Today, in biology at least, “the starting point is always lower than what is developed,” Lewis commented.
The modern intelligent design movement has raised a related question: How did we ever acquire the information that is essential for an organism to develop in stages from amoeba to Man? No such progression has ever been observed, experimentally, and the question raised by the advocates of intelligent design has never been answered.
Lewis anticipated that our own “model” is also likely to change. We can see why, and perhaps it is already doing so. One big social change in the 150 years since The Origin of Species was published is that the old faith in progress has been lost. At the end of The Origin Charles Darwin wrote: “As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress toward perfection.”
Improvement was thought of as having been built into the Cosmos. That faith endured throughout the 19th century and for the first half of the 20th. But we no longer believe in the doctrine of progress. The Holocaust, the Gulag, and two world wars didn’t help, of course. But for their own reasons, often inexplicit, intellectuals now see the world in a much more pessimistic way than they formerly did.
Environmentalists in particular view humans as little more than polluters who should reproduce less frequently — or perhaps stop entirely. Nature might then be restored to its pure and unsullied state. A surprise best seller in 2007 was The World Without Us, from which human beings have disappeared, for unexplained reasons. The book was greeted as a new vision of Utopia.
But absent a robust faith in progress, I suspect, people will not easily believe in evolution either. Evolution is a theory that arose with the Enlightenment, when change came to be equated with progress. But that vision is remote from our own world and there have been other such U-turns. For example, who in C.S. Lewis’s day would have predicted the abrupt return of Islam within four decades of his death?
The idea that progress can no longer be relied upon has seeped into corners of the academy, where we are finding calls for the renewal of eugenics. If Man will not improve on his own, then he must be remade, willy-nilly. A chapter in The Magician’s Twin tells us about Julian Savulescu, the head of something called the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University. He was a student of the Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who earlier called for the extension of human rights to animals. “Bioethics” may be on its way to becoming the polite new word for eugenics.
Darwin became uncomfortable later in life because he believed that social reformers in England were undermining natural selection (the “survival of the fittest”) by introducing what we would call welfare programs. Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton launched eugenics as a corrective and it was later adopted by National Socialists in Germany. That discredited eugenics, but Julian Huxley (the grandson of Darwin’s strongest supporter) was still backing the movement as late as 1960.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?