Ed Feser continues his argument against ID

I don't have time to read the whole essay, today, but I will, with the hope that Prof. Feser will finally make clear his objections to ID, which, in my opinion, he has failed to do so far.

A 2nd Example of Lewis using Science in his Apologetics

This one comes from his book, Miracles; a Preliminary Study. He begins his third chapter, "The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism,"

... by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that only Nature -- the whole interlocked system -- exists. And if that were true, every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder (no heel-taps) as a necessary product of the system....
One threat against strict Naturalism has recently been launched on which I myself will base no argument, but which it will be well to notice....Some modern scientists seem to think...that the individual unit of matter (it would be rash to call it any longer a 'particle') moves in an indeterminate or random fashion; moves, in fact, 'on its own' or 'of its own accord.'...Now it will be noticed that if this theory is true we have really admitted something other than Nature. It would be, indeed, too great a shock to our habits to describe them as super-natural. I think we should have to call them sub-natural. But all our confidence that Nature has no doors, and no reality outside herself for doors to open on, would have disappeared. There is apparently something outside her, the Subnatural; it is indeed from this Subnatural that all events and all 'bodies' are, as it were, fed into her. And clearly if she thus has a back door opening on the Subnatural, it is quite on the cards that she may also have a front door opening on the Supernatural -- and events might be fed into her at that door too.
I have mentioned this theory because it puts in a fairly vivid light certain conceptions which we shall have to use later on. But I am not, for my own part, assuming its truth. Those who like myself have had a philosophical rather than a scientific education find it almost impossible to believe that the scientists really mean what they seem to be saying. I cannot help thinking they mean no more than that the movements of individual units are permanently incalculable to us, not that they are in themselves random and lawless. And even if they mean the latter, a layman can hardly feel any certainty that some new scientific development may not tomorrow abolish this whole idea of a lawless Subnature. For it is the glory of science to progress. [Emphasis mine] I therefore turn willingly to other ground.

Notice that Lewis has made it clear that he will not base his apologetics on science, since science can change, but for those who accept the "truths" of science, clearly it can pose serious challenges to metaphysical positions, in this case Naturalism.

Well, if it can pose challenges to metaphysical positions, then there's no reason to think it cannot provide support for metaphysical positions. Thus we saw previously that Lewis thought scientific evidence provided support for the Christian doctrine that the universe had a beginning.

So there is no reason why Lewis would necessarily reject evidence of Intelligent Design as being unable to provide evidence that supports a Theistic worldview.

Next time we'll consider what Lewis would have thought about the "God-of-the Gaps" argument.

An Example of C.S. Lewis Using Science in his Apologetics

From his essay, "Dogma and the Universe," in his book, God in the Dock:

"...I would like to clear up certain points about the actual relations between Christian doctrine and the scientific knowledge we already have. That is a different matter from the continual growth of knowledge we imagine, whether rightly or wrongly, in the future and which, as some think, is bound to defeat us in the end.

"In one respect, as many Christians have noticed, contemporary science has recently come into line with Christian doctrine, and parted company with the classical forms of materialism. If anything emerges clearly from modern physics, it is that nature is not everlasting. The universe had a beginning, and will have an end. But the great materialistic systems of the past all believed in the eternity, and thence in the self-existence of matter. As Professor Whittaker said in the Riddell Lectures of 1942, 'It was never possible to oppose seriously the dogma of the Creation except by maintaining that the world has existed from all eternity in more or less its present state.' This fundamental ground for materialism has now been withdrawn. We should not lean too heavily on this, for scientific theories change. But at the moment it appears that the burden of proof rests, not on us, but on those who deny that nature has some cause beyond herself."

Notice how Lewis briefly mentions a scientific discovery (the universe had a beginning) in order to score a point for Christianity. But then he advises us not to "lean too heavily on this, for scientific theories change."

So yes, Lewis has no problem using science to support his apologetics. But he never made it the major part of his argument and always cautions that science can change.

So would Lewis have used ID arguments in his apologetics? Since ID is still very controversial, Lewis would have been even more cautious, but I have no doubt that in the right context he would have referred to them.

That's "Brouhaha"

For people who don't know how to spell it. By the way, it comes from French. I think it's the best word they ever invented. I wonder how they pronounce it.

The Synthese Broo-ha-ha

I'm only vaguely aware of the controversy surrounding the publication of a special edition of the philosophical journal, Synthese. Bradley Monton, author of Seeking God in Science, knows a lot more.

2nd Addendum on C. S. Lewis and Science

A revealing essay by C.S. Lewis can be found either in his book, God in the Dock, or online: "Christian Apologetics". The relevant passage:

"I am speaking, so far of theological reading. Scientific reading is a different matter. If you know any science it is very desirable that you should keep it up. We have to answer the current scientific attitude toward Christianity, not the attitude scientists adopted one hundred years ago. Science is in continual change and we must try to keep abreast of it. We may mention such things; but we must mention them lightly and without claiming that they are more than “interesting.” Sentences beginning “Science has now proved” should be avoided. If we try to base our apologetic on some recent development in science, we shall usually find that just as we have put the finishing touches to our argument science has changed its mind and quietly withdrawn the theory we have been using as our foundation stone."

So would Lewis have rejected ID? No. Would he have made ID a major part of his apologetics? No, but he would have mentioned it "lightly" and claimed that it was "interesting."

Addendum on C.S. Lewis and ID

Of course, I think Lewis would have taken advantage of Fred Hoyle’s believing in ID. He might have written something like, “If even the great astronomer and atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle, felt compelled to admit that the first bacteria must have been intelligently designed, perhaps the argument for design in biological reality is much stronger than most scientists care to admit.”