Thread by @EstherOfReilly

C. S. Lewis was possibly the greatest apologist of his generation. At the same time, he put scientific questions about creation/evolution in a box & never looked into them deeply. Some might draw the wrong moral from this. /1

The moral some might draw is: "See? Clearly these questions aren't important, if C. S. Lewis could still be C. S. Lewis while ignoring them. That's my pass to ignore them too. Seriously everyone stop fussing over this." /2

I think two questions are being conflated here: "Can one be a thoughtful and deeply committed Christian without dealing with these issues?" vs. "Can one have a thoroughly integrated mind as a Christian without addressing these issues?" /3

Obviously Lewis proves the answer to the 1st is "Yes." But I think that's a "No" on the 2nd. In particular, with human origins, one really can't afford not to think about this. To default to the accepted line with no pushback is to default to a Gnostic view of the body. /4

The word "humanism" has become a dirty word, but part of my mission in stealing it back is deeply considering what it means for the human body to be sacred as well as the soul, which is why I appreciate @NancyRPearcey's work. /5

@NancyRPearcey I also think there is value in thinking clearly so that we can be helpful to others who are in the sway of bad arguments and poor philosophy. There is so much pressure to conform today, but so much of that pressure is based on flimsy arguments. /6

@NancyRPearcey Philosophy of science is rich and fascinating, but so often twisted to fit an evolutionary agenda. Understanding what good phil sci actually looks like is a part of the adventure of exploring the created order well, & as such is inherently valuable. /7

@NancyRPearcey When we cede this debate without a fight, we abandon what I see as a whole trail of breadcrumbs God has left behind Him for us to follow and delight over. And we discourage those who have cognitive dissonance but feel like there is no rational place left to turn. /8

@NancyRPearcey Most importantly, we shove deep questions under the rug about what it actually means to be human and bear the imago Dei. We decouple the idea of bearing the image of God from our earthy, embodied nature & play theological word games so that we can have it both ways. /9

@NancyRPearcey We do this because we tend to be cowed by "academic consensus," by injunctions to "stay in our lane," and by the assumption that there is nothing meaningful we can contribute while the Scientific adults are talking. Don't question. Just accept. /10

@NancyRPearcey This attitude is, of course, wholly antithetical to the spirit of the scientific enterprise--to be curious, to be open, to allow the magisteria to overlap. To be as good a philosopher as one is a scientist. /11

@NancyRPearcey We need to not be afraid to enter this debate. We need to not assume that consensus is settled law or that the suppositions that undergird evolutionary reasoning are objectively sound. Intelligent people can do bad philosophy. They do it all the time. /12

@NancyRPearcey So I encourage Christians who are inclined to put this in a box to reconsider. It's better for so many reasons that the box be opened and the contents examined, without fear and without apology. Even if C. S. Lewis never got around to it, you still can. /End

@NancyRPearcey @threadreaderapp Unroll