Premium Essay

How Did Evolutionism Influence C. S. Lewis Scientism

Submitted By
Words 494
Pages 2
Along with the culture, scientism of the time made immense influences on C.S. Lewis with the production of his book. After Charles Darwin and the rise of evolutionism, many theories of creation come up, which C.S. Lewis defends. As stated, when Lewis was younger and within his adolescent years he was a claimed atheist. Before his conversion to Christianity, C.S. Lewis considered many theories and ideas (Biography.com Editors). But after his conversion he realized that God was creator of all, and all the theories, like evolutionism, was something he wanted to defend, not support. Lewis states:

“We must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth. [...] To the biologist Evolution […] covers more of the facts than any other hypothesis at present on the market and is therefore to be accepted unless, or until, some new supposal can be shown to cover still more facts with even fewer assumptions. […] It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements.” (Applegate). …show more content…
lewis wants defend the scientism at the time. The danger does not come from evolution as a theory itself, but evolutionism, the world view itself. Lewis wants to defend and prove his beliefs to people. He is able to accomplish this by using his Christian beliefs, on creation, and inserting these ideas behind characters, stories and events in his series, The Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. lewis truly believes that the change starts in the heart, so if he could create a world and story people could connect with, from the heart, there would be change. The argument is not against what C.S. Lewis believes, it is about who he believes in and what he is trying to defend because of

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Epis' Paper on Positivism

...-“Strauss versus Brains and Genes or the postmodern vengeful return of positivism.” This essay first started as an answer to what I deemed very problematic, i.e. the disputation which I found in bad faith (un-authentic to use a philosophical term or an existentialist term), of the mediatic, dashing Harvard cognitivist/linguist, Steven Pinker, in his article “Neglected novelists, embattled English professors, tenure-less historians, and other struggling denizens of the Humanities, Science is not your Enemy—a plea for an intellectual truce,” (The New Republic--August 19). Then the counter-arguments against Steven Pinker’s conception of the “human animal” developed into an essay arguing that the New Positivism, not science, or technology per say, was the enemy of humanism and its avatars as such. The point is not to become a postmodern anti-scientific Luddite. Genomics are changing the world in ways we barely imagine yet and will re-define what it means to be human (a becoming already imagined by science fiction writers, social critics and critical thinkers such as the feminist Donna Haraway with her “Cyborg”). The point is also not to turn “anti-brainiac.” Without a brain we would become vegetative, a vegetal…, i.e. a purely “natural body,” a “zombie.” If we make use of this “computer” allegory which is an analog but not a homologue, and which is used ad nauseam used by psycho-biologists, without a hard-drive there is no software. But is this a reason to say that the software...

Words: 20403 - Pages: 82