McLaren and Lewis on the demystification of the universe in A New Kind of Christian

[C.S. Lewis, in "The Discarded Image"] explains that medieval European Christians had developed a sophisticated worldview that was so intertwined with their faith that to them it was an essential part of their faith. In this worldview, the universe consisted of a series of concentric spheres, the smallest of which was the earth. As spheres ascended from the earth, they held objects of increasing perfection - the moon, then the planets, and then the starts, the angels, and so on. The spheres moved around the earth in a beautiful kind of cosmic dance, and it was thought that as they moved, they produced a beautiful music, symbolic of the harmony of God;s creation.

Near the end of the book, Lewis notes now new developments - especially new observations in the field of astronomy... - forced the medieval model of the universe to be 'adjusted' and the adjustments were becoming increasingly complex. Here's how Lewis explains this tinkering with the model."...

The old scheme... had been tinkered a good deal to keep up with observations. How far, by endless tinkerings, it could have kept up with them till even now, I do not know. But human mind will not long ensure such ever-increasing complications if once it has seen that some simpler conception can"save the appearances" (account for the data), Neither theological prejudice nor vested interests can permanently keep in favor a Model which is seen to be grossly uneconomical.

In other words, ... the medieval world had developed a working worldview, a working model of reality - a paradigm, a mental map - that could not account for or adapt to increasing amounts of new data (like the scientific findings of Copernicus and later Calileo and of course later still Darwin). Perhaps like a contract of constitution that is updated with more and more footnotes, fine tuning, and other amendments, people tray to keep the old contract alive, but eventually the amendments outweigh the original document, and someone says, "Why don't we just start over from scratch on a new one?"

But it's not that easy, Trading in an old model of reality for a new one has real costs associated with it. True, something may be gained, but a lot is lost too. [Later on in "The Discarded Image", Lewis] starts making clear what was at stake in trading in the old worldview for a newer one.

In our universe [the earth] is small, no doubt; but so are the galaxies, so is everything -- and so what? But in [the medieval] there was an absolute standard of comparison. The furthest sphere, Dante's maggio corpo is, quite simply and finally, the largest object in existence. . .Hence to look out on the night sky with modern eyes is like looking out over a sea that fades away into mist, or looking about one in a trackless forest -- trees forever and no horizon. To look up at the towering medieval universe is much more like looking at a great building. The "space" of modern astronomy may arouse terror or bewilderment or vague reverie; the spheres of the old present us with an object in which the mind can rest, overwhelming in its greatness but satisfying in its harmony. . . Pascal's terror at le silence eternel de ces espaces infinis never entered his mind. He is like a man being conducted through an immense cathedral, not like one lost in a shoreless sea.

Kenneth Miller on free will

"As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. Their God fashioned a material world in which truly free and independent beings could evolve. He got it right the very first time.

To some, the murderous reality of human nature is proof that God is absent or dead. The same reasoning would find God missing from the unpredictable branchings of an evolutionary tree. But the truth is deeper. In each case, a deity determined to establish a world that was truly independent of his whims, a world in which intelligent creatures would face authentic choices between good and evil, would have to fashion a distinct, material reality and then let his creation run. Neither the self-sufficiency of nature nor the reality of evil in the world mean God is absent. To a religious person, both signify something quite different - the strength of God's love and the reality of our freedom as his creatures.

Kenneth Miller, in Finding Darwins God


Finding Darwin's God:

Kenneth Miller on evolution, free will

“Accepting evolution is neither more nor less than the result of respecting the reality and consistency of the physical world over time. We are material beings with an independent physical existence, and to fashion such beings, any Creator would have had to produce an independent material universe in which our evolution over time was a contingent posibility. A believer in the divine accepts that God’s love and His gifts of freedom are genuine – so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to hell. Not all believers will accept the stark conditions of that bargain, but our freedom to act has to have a physical and biological basis. Evolution and its sister sciences of genetics and molecular biology provide that basis. A biologically static world would leave a Creator’s creatures with neither freedom nor the independence required to exercise that freedom. In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are – free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.”-

- Kenneth R. Miller, Cell Biologist at Brown University
in "Finding Darwin's God" p. 290-291

Kenneth Miller on ID, science, popularity of ID

"“Whenever you debate, you should really have one person representing I.D. on one side and 10,000 scientists on the other. That would give a fair representation of the division of opinion in the scientific community.”

Kenneth Miller

Kenneth Miller quotes:

Kenneth Miller on ID, God of the gaps

The only evidence that intelligent design is able to muster is the observation that science has not yet explained everything, and therefore design must be kept around as a default explanation for what is left,”


Kenneth Miller

Kenneth Miller quotes: "“

C.S. Lewis on Nature, Science and Theology

The Fire and the Rose: Four theses against Intelligent Design: If you take nature as a teacher she will teach you exactly the lessons you had already decided to learn; this is only another way of saying that nature does not teach. . . . Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word glory a meaning for me. . . . Of course the fact that a Christian can so use nature is not even the beginning of a proof that Christianity is true. Those suffering from Dark Gods can equally use her (I suppose) for their creed. That is precisely the point. Nature does not teach. A true philosophy may sometimes validate an experience of nature; an experience of nature cannot validate a philosophy. Nature will not verify any theological or metaphysical proposition . . .; she will help to show what it means. (Four Loves, 19-20)

Orr on Irreducable Complexity, ID

Intelligent Design: "H. Allen Orr writes:
Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.*"

*Source