evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-19--Squeezing Out the Mystery: Final Comments on Strickberger’s Evolution

Squeezing Out the Mystery : Final Comments on Strickberger ’ s Evolution Editor ’ s note : Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah , Iowa .
He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism , The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms .
See also the earlier entries in this series : In my previous post analyzing Strickberger ’ s Evolution , a prominent textbook by Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson , I focused on the phenomenon of convergent evolution .
One of the most amazing examples of convergence is the repeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will begin this final post by considering Strickberger ’ s treatment of eye evolution along with comments on a few other problematic aspects of the textbook .
But how could a similar series of mutations of the sort necessary to produce similarly structured eyes in different lineages occur so many times independently if the mutations are randomly produced ?
Hall and Hallgrimsson are not bothered by this question , but in order to convince the reader that such a thing is possible , they appeal to the well-known work of Dan-Eric Nilsson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pelger published an article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London demonstrating how a light-sensitive patch of pigment could develop into a complex camera eye in a relatively short period of time , a sequence of steps that supposedly has occurred multiple times in the history of life .
What Hall and Hallgrimsson fail to report , unfortunately , are the important caveats contained in Nilsson and Pelger ’ s paper .
First , Nilsson and Pelger point out that an eye makes little sense on its own .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development of neural networks and processing centers to produce the subjective experience of sight would not confer a selective advantage on an organism .
One can have fully functioning eyes and yet be blind due to disruptions in the visual centers of the brain .
Based on this fact Nilsson and Pelger conclude : Of course , they have just argued that eye geometry and optical structure do not impose the only limit !
Their scenario therefore does not solve the problem of convergent eye evolution .
Hall and Hallgrimsson ’ s summary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is disingenuous at best .
Biology education must encourage students to read original papers and not uncritically accept the summaries found in textbooks .
Nevertheless , Hall and Hallgrimsson do believe that natural selection can string together the mutations necessary to produce complex new structures .
They attempt to demonstrate this with a common analogy .
Suppose , they say , we have a bowl full of ten different letters ( A , C , E , I , N , O , T , U , V ) with each letter present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawing nine letters at random that happen to spell EVOLUTION is only 1 in 109 .
These are long odds .
But if we assume E is the only letter that can survive by itself , it will be preserved when drawn .
Then if we assume EV is an adaptive combination , the chance of drawing V and thus getting EV is only 1 in 10 ( not 1 in 100 ) .
In this way , “ the entire word , EVOLUTION , can eventually be selected with relatively high probability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the strictly opportunistic one of what is adaptive at each separate stage.
” The problem here is obvious .
The adaptive advantage of EV is based on knowing that the final target is EVOLUTION .
But by definition , natural selection has no foresight and can not know what the final complex structure is supposed to be .
Adaptability is determined only by present conditions , not some future goal or purpose .
This hypothetical problem is later repeated in a real-world example .
Say we want a protein that is 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stringing the amino acids together in the correct order randomly is 1 in 10130 .
But at each link in the chain there is a 1 in 20 chance of getting the correct amino acid .
Therefore : Here Hall and Hallgrimsson fail to reflect on the meaning of the word correct .
How will natural selection know which amino acid is “ correct ” in each position without knowing the whole correct sequence from the start ?
The textbook fails miserably in its attempt to address the problem of combinatorial inflation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to read the papers produced at the famous Wistar Institute conference of the 1960s !
Perhaps the issue isn ’ t so much the small variations in DNA sequences that affect amino acid and protein synthesis .
Perhaps gene regulation is the important dynamic in generating variation .
Strickberger ’ s Evolution explains : We are then told that : The reference is to Francois Jacob ’ s famous paper “ Evolution and Tinkering ” that appeared in Science .
As we just saw with the article by Nilsson and Pelger , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ careful reading of Jacob ’ s paper .
According to Jacob , engineering and tinkering differ in the following important way : If Jacob is right , the phenomenon of convergent evolution suggests that natural selection fits better with the analogy of the engineer than it does the tinkerer !
Moreover , just because a tinkerer is relegated to materials readily at hand doesn ’ t mean that the tinkerer doesn ’ t know in advance what he is trying to produce .
Why tinker if you don ’ t have some idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps this is why Jacob , who wrote an entire paper based on drawing an analogy between natural selection and a human process , still concluded , “ natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior.
” In this post and the five that preceded it I have tried to highlight some of the more egregious ways Strickberger ’ s Evolution fundamentally distorts the science of evolutionary biology in service to its real intention to indoctrinate students into the Darwinian worldview .
Clearly this textbook is not alone .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this series of posts could be found in many other evolutionary biology textbooks .
It is a great irony that one of the biological establishment ’ s chief complaints about intelligent design is the charge that ID proponents want to undermine science and turn the science classroom into an arena of religious indoctrination .
In reality , however , it is the biological establishment that appears guilty of the crime of indoctrination and the undermining of real scientific inquiry and science education .
The origin and development of life on earth presents us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can face .
The science classroom should be a place where students are brought fully into the presence of this mystery , not indoctrinated into a philosophical worldview that attempts to squeeze the mystery out .
Strickberger ’ s Evolution , unfortunately , is a prime example of the latter .

Photo: Gaze into the eye of a chambered nautilus, © Hans Hillewaert.
Squeezing Out the Mystery: Final Comments on Strickberger’s Evolution
Editor’s note: Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms. See also the earlier entries in this series:
In my previous post analyzing Strickberger’s Evolution, a prominent textbook by Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson, I focused on the phenomenon of convergent evolution. One of the most amazing examples of convergence is the repeated evolution of the camera eye. I will begin this final post by considering Strickberger’s treatment of eye evolution along with comments on a few other problematic aspects of the textbook.
On eye evolution, Hall and Hallgrimsson write:
As explained by the process of convergent evolution, the structural similarity of squid and vertebrate eyes does not come from an ancestral visual structure in a recent common ancestor of mollusks and vertebrates, but rather from convergent evolution as similar selective pressures led to similar organs that enhance visual acuity. Such morphological convergences may have arisen independently in numerous other animal lineages subject to similar selective visual pressures. [Emphasis in the original.]
But how could a similar series of mutations of the sort necessary to produce similarly structured eyes in different lineages occur so many times independently if the mutations are randomly produced? Hall and Hallgrimsson are not bothered by this question, but in order to convince the reader that such a thing is possible, they appeal to the well-known work of Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger.
Caveats in Nilsson and Pelger’s Paper
In 1994, Nilsson and Pelger published an article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London demonstrating how a light-sensitive patch of pigment could develop into a complex camera eye in a relatively short period of time, a sequence of steps that supposedly has occurred multiple times in the history of life. What Hall and Hallgrimsson fail to report, unfortunately, are the important caveats contained in Nilsson and Pelger’s paper.
First, Nilsson and Pelger point out that an eye makes little sense on its own. A patch of light-sensitive pigment absent the simultaneous development of neural networks and processing centers to produce the subjective experience of sight would not confer a selective advantage on an organism. One can have fully functioning eyes and yet be blind due to disruptions in the visual centers of the brain. Based on this fact Nilsson and Pelger conclude:
Because eyes cannot evolve on their own, our calculations do not say how long it actually took for eyes to evolve in their various animal groups. However, the estimate demonstrates that eye evolution would be extremely fast if selection for eye geometry and optical structures imposed the only limit. [Emphasis in the original.]
Of course, they have just argued that eye geometry and optical structure do not impose the only limit! Their scenario therefore does not solve the problem of convergent eye evolution. Hall and Hallgrimsson’s summary of Nilsson and Pelger’s work is disingenuous at best. Biology education must encourage students to read original papers and not uncritically accept the summaries found in textbooks.
A Common Analogy
Nevertheless, Hall and Hallgrimsson do believe that natural selection can string together the mutations necessary to produce complex new structures. They attempt to demonstrate this with a common analogy. Suppose, they say, we have a bowl full of ten different letters (A, C, E, I, N, O, T, U, V) with each letter present in equal frequency. The chance of drawing nine letters at random that happen to spell EVOLUTION is only 1 in 109. These are long odds. But if we assume E is the only letter that can survive by itself, it will be preserved when drawn. Then if we assume EV is an adaptive combination, the chance of drawing V and thus getting EV is only 1 in 10 (not 1 in 100). In this way, “the entire word, EVOLUTION, can eventually be selected with relatively high probability without the intervention of any agent other than the strictly opportunistic one of what is adaptive at each separate stage.”
The problem here is obvious. The adaptive advantage of EV is based on knowing that the final target is EVOLUTION. But by definition, natural selection has no foresight and cannot know what the final complex structure is supposed to be. Adaptability is determined only by present conditions, not some future goal or purpose. This hypothetical problem is later repeated in a real-world example.
The Meaning of “Correct”
Say we want a protein that is 100 amino acids long. The odds against stringing the amino acids together in the correct order randomly is 1 in 10130. But at each link in the chain there is a 1 in 20 chance of getting the correct amino acid. Therefore:
This stepwise procedure would entail perhaps 20 trials to achieve the correct amino acid at one position, another 20 trials to achieve the correct amino acid at one position, and so on. In sum, a succession of only 95 x 20=1900 trials may be necessary for selection to elicit a functional amino acid sequence for a chain 100 amino acids long.
Here Hall and Hallgrimsson fail to reflect on the meaning of the word correct. How will natural selection know which amino acid is “correct” in each position without knowing the whole correct sequence from the start? The textbook fails miserably in its attempt to address the problem of combinatorial inflation. The authors would have been well served to read the papers produced at the famous Wistar Institute conference of the 1960s!
Perhaps the issue isn’t so much the small variations in DNA sequences that affect amino acid and protein synthesis. Perhaps gene regulation is the important dynamic in generating variation. Strickberger’s Evolution explains:
In a seminal paper credited with directing many researchers to enter molecular biology, Francois Jacob (1977) saw the importance of regulation (which he named tinkering) in both development and evolution and as the ultimate target of natural selection.
We are then told that:
Natural selection does not work as an engineer works. It works like a tinkerer — a tinkerer who does not know exactly what [s]he is going to produce.
The reference is to Francois Jacob’s famous paper “Evolution and Tinkering” that appeared in Science. As we just saw with the article by Nilsson and Pelger, the textbook authors would have benefitted from a careful reading of Jacob’s paper.
Engineering and Tinkering
According to Jacob, engineering and tinkering differ in the following important way:
When different engineers tackle the same problem, they are likely to end up with very nearly the same solution: all cars look alike, as do all cameras and all fountain pens. In contrast, different tinkerers interested in the same problem will reach different solutions, depending on the opportunities available to each of them.
If Jacob is right, the phenomenon of convergent evolution suggests that natural selection fits better with the analogy of the engineer than it does the tinkerer! Moreover, just because a tinkerer is relegated to materials readily at hand doesn’t mean that the tinkerer doesn’t know in advance what he is trying to produce. Why tinker if you don’t have some idea of what you want to accomplish? Perhaps this is why Jacob, who wrote an entire paper based on drawing an analogy between natural selection and a human process, still concluded, “natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior.”
Distorting Evolution to Indoctrinate Students
In this post and the five that preceded it I have tried to highlight some of the more egregious ways Strickberger’s Evolution fundamentally distorts the science of evolutionary biology in service to its real intention to indoctrinate students into the Darwinian worldview. Clearly this textbook is not alone. Many of the errors and distortions outlined in this series of posts could be found in many other evolutionary biology textbooks.
It is a great irony that one of the biological establishment’s chief complaints about intelligent design is the charge that ID proponents want to undermine science and turn the science classroom into an arena of religious indoctrination. In reality, however, it is the biological establishment that appears guilty of the crime of indoctrination and the undermining of real scientific inquiry and science education. The origin and development of life on earth presents us with some of the most profound mysteries we can face. The science classroom should be a place where students are brought fully into the presence of this mystery, not indoctrinated into a philosophical worldview that attempts to squeeze the mystery out. Strickberger’s Evolution, unfortunately, is a prime example of the latter.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-21--Remembering Senator Slade Gorton

Remembering Senator Slade Gorton

Discovery Institute president Steven Buri reached me with the hard news that our greatly valued colleague , Slade Gorton , @ @ @ @ @ 92 , having lived an extraordinarily productive — and exemplary — life .
He was @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute Board for almost two decades , always pithy and smart .
But long @ @ @ @ @ Board he was an ally and friend for many of us .
I have stories @ @ @ @ @ to the early 1960s !
And I don ’ t think it is widely enough @ @ @ @ @ his 40-year political career , continued to nurture newcomers , particularly young people whom he @ @ @ @ @ .
In coming days there will be myriad tributes to this fine man and his @ @ @ @ @ , and people .
Please join me in saluting his memory and expressing gratitude for @ @ @ @ @ Some will submit that his kind are gone , but I know that they are @ @ @ @ @ helped get them there .

Photo credit: United States Senate / Public domain.
Discovery Institute president Steven Buri reached me with the hard news that our greatly valued colleague, Slade Gorton, has died. He was 92, having lived an extraordinarily productive — and exemplary — life. He was a trusted member of the Discovery Institute Board for almost two decades, always pithy and smart. But long before his time on our Board he was an ally and friend for many of us. I have stories about Slade that go back to the early 1960s!
And I don’t think it is widely enough recognized how Slade, after his 40-year political career, continued to nurture newcomers, particularly young people whom he considered to have leadership promise. In coming days there will be myriad tributes to this fine man and his legacy in principles, policy, and people. Please join me in saluting his memory and expressing gratitude for his friendship and service. Some will submit that his kind are gone, but I know that they are still around, because he helped get them there.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-20--“In Fauci We Trust”? C. S. Lewis Foresaw Scientific Authoritarianism

A friend sends out an email each morning , welcoming recipients to whatever day it may be since the 14-day COVID shutdown began here in Washington State .
Today it ’ s welcome to Day 150. Who would have predicted all that Americans have experienced in the past five months ?
Economic catastrophe , shrugged off by the permanently employed class in our government and media .
Endless isolation with all its social ills .
Cities committing suicide , plunged into chaos and squalor by fake news , as the government winks at violence and undercuts the police .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disputed , leading to more chaos .
Something is very wrong in our country , as you don ’ t need me to tell you .
But what is going on ?
I suggest that you watch this important video by political scientist John West , our Discovery Institute colleague .
He sheds a fascinating light on the outcomes when what C. S. Lewis called “ scientocracy ” is put in charge : Among the most startling upshots of recent months is the way people and things that you once might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dry tinder .
That a cloth mask would be embraced as a tribal totem ?
That children going off to school would spark terror ?
That Dr. Anthony Fauci would become a figure of enthusiastic , near-religious devotion to millions ?
That a virus , from the same family that gives us the common cold , would set off a series of events including talk of a second Civil War ?
At the heart of it all are science and culture .
Their intersection , long divisive as we know from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2020 , science emerged not as source of insight and service to humanity , but also as a false religion .
There is no God but Science and Fauci is His messenger .
I started really worrying in May when I watched a humiliating video in which a couple of prominent rabbis , representing my own religious community , conducted a supremely fawning interview with Fauci , pledging to keep their own synagogues shut even after the government gave permission to open .
At one point they sang a psalm for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can supply instances of similar passivity and obsequiousness from spokesmen for their own faith .
As Dr. West explains , for all the blessings of science , there are problems with saying , as some literally have done , “ In Fauci we trust.
” C. S. Lewis foresaw that this was the direction in which our culture was headed , as we place faith in scientific bureaucrats , handing over our freedom to them overnight .
West argues for a reasonable skepticism about what scientists say , for balancing scientific with other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He offers tips for viewing science-worship with sober detachment , recognizing that fails , and worse , are common in the history of science and that scientists themselves are a group with biases that go too often unrecognized .
When science becomes idolatry , we call it scientism .
It needs to be resisted .
I hope you ’ ll share this video with friends and family members .

Image credit: DonkeyHotey / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
A friend sends out an email each morning, welcoming recipients to whatever day it may be since the 14-day COVID shutdown began here in Washington State. Today it’s welcome to Day 150. Who would have predicted all that Americans have experienced in the past five months? Economic catastrophe, shrugged off by the permanently employed class in our government and media. Endless isolation with all its social ills. Cities committing suicide, plunged into chaos and squalor by fake news, as the government winks at violence and undercuts the police. An upcoming election whose results seem guaranteed to be disputed, leading to more chaos.
Something is very wrong in our country, as you don’t need me to tell you. But what is going on? I suggest that you watch this important video by political scientist John West, our Discovery Institute colleague. He sheds a fascinating light on the outcomes when what C. S. Lewis called “scientocracy” is put in charge:
No God but Science
Among the most startling upshots of recent months is the way people and things that you once might have regarded as uninteresting have become like matches to dry tinder. That a cloth mask would be embraced as a tribal totem? That children going off to school would spark terror? That Dr. Anthony Fauci would become a figure of enthusiastic, near-religious devotion to millions? That a virus, from the same family that gives us the common cold, would set off a series of events including talk of a second Civil War?
At the heart of it all are science and culture. Their intersection, long divisive as we know from the evolution debate, became radioactive this year. In 2020, science emerged not as source of insight and service to humanity, but also as a false religion.
There is no God but Science and Fauci is His messenger. I started really worrying in May when I watched a humiliating video in which a couple of prominent rabbis, representing my own religious community, conducted a supremely fawning interview with Fauci, pledging to keep their own synagogues shut even after the government gave permission to open. At one point they sang a psalm for him. I know that Christian friends can supply instances of similar passivity and obsequiousness from spokesmen for their own faith.
Uncounted Fails, Unrecognized Biases
As Dr. West explains, for all the blessings of science, there are problems with saying, as some literally have done, “In Fauci we trust.” C. S. Lewis foresaw that this was the direction in which our culture was headed, as we place faith in scientific bureaucrats, handing over our freedom to them overnight. West argues for a reasonable skepticism about what scientists say, for balancing scientific with other valid considerations in setting public policy. He offers tips for viewing science-worship with sober detachment, recognizing that fails, and worse, are common in the history of science and that scientists themselves are a group with biases that go too often unrecognized.
When science becomes idolatry, we call it scientism. It needs to be resisted. I hope you’ll share this video with friends and family members.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-20--Concluding Thoughts on That Hideous Strength

Editor ’ s note : Published on August 16 , 1945 , C. S. Lewis ’ s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020 .
This week and next , to mark the book ’ s three-quarter century anniversary , Evolution News presents a series of essays , reflections , and videos about its themes and legacy .
Dr. Cameron Wybrow is a scholar , teacher , and writer with academic and popular publications on a variety of subjects .
He has a particular interest in philosophical and theological critiques of modernity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S. Lewis .
This post is adapted from Chapter 11 of The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis on Science , Scientism , and Society , edited by John G. West .
See also : • “ The Education of Mark Studdock : A Sociologist Learns the Lessons of The Abolition of Man ” • “ The Main Argument of The Abolition of Man ” • “ The Education of Mark Studdock in That Hideous Strength ” Why is it that the Gaiuses and Titiuses of the world do not come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at ?
I think the answer , in part , is that Gaius and Titius , and a thousand educators like them ( generally armed , these days , with PhDs in Education ) , operate in a world of pure theory , a world of academic discourse in which the like-minded preach to each other .
Mark Studdock was like that , early on in That Hideous Strength .
As a fellow of Bracton , he lived in an ivory tower , where the schemes and plots of academic factions were his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That Hideous Strength force Mark to come to grips with reality .
They force him to see what effects ideas have when they get out into the real world of political and social and ethical life .
The truth of experience enables him to see the falsehood of bad theory .
Our modern academics , on the other hand , have undergone no such life-transforming experiences .
Living in an almost completely artificial intellectual environment , protected by tenure , and in no way answerable for the real-life effects of their theories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morals which , however destructive to society in the long term , are unlikely to rebound upon them in the visceral way that Mark ’ s teaching rebounded upon him .
Another part of the answer , I think , is that our theories of education are almost completely dominated nowadays by the social sciences , with very little input from the traditional humanities .
And the social sciences are largely oriented to changing the world , in a certain direction which we might politely call “ progressive.
” This deep commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis for social change ( as natural science is conceived to be a theoretical basis for technological change ) makes modern education theorists generally impatient of old-fashioned humanities education .
Why waste time in the hopeless , idealistic task of trying to produce better people ( even if there were an objective definition of “ better , ” which most social scientists deny ) when you could be learning the scientific principles that will enable us to control our future social environment , making society better even though people remain as intellectually and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , is exactly the opposite of the vision of education held by Lewis .
Education must be based on the cultivation of the mind and heart of the individual , and that cultivation must consist of exposing the students to the best that has been thought and felt and known by human beings across the ages .
If there is any hope , then , of preventing what Lewis called “ the abolition of man , ” it will not come from our certified experts on education .
They are nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the very spirit of modernity that Lewis was criticizing .
And their insulation within professional cliques of “ education theorists ” who speak academese rather than English , and who have almost no meaningful contact with the average member of society , guarantees that very few of them will ever have the life-transforming experience of a Mark Studdock .
So the necessary counter-teaching must come from elsewhere .
It must come from the few remaining real philosophers ( most of whom do not teach in philosophy departments ) , from the few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not teach in theology departments ) , from the few remaining inspired poets and dramatists and novelists and other artists , from the few remaining wise historians , and from the ( hopefully not so few ) remaining sober , sane , well-balanced parents and citizens who continue to know that we are still under the Tao .
These people will still continue to place humanity above abstractions such as “ the conquest of nature , ” “ science , ” and “ progress.
” To be sure , such people are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction of public life than they were in Lewis ’ s time .
The institutional supports which still existed , in some measure , in Lewis ’ s day , are now almost entirely gone .
The chances that a high school student of today will learn Latin , or read some Herodotus , or will even hear the names of Augustine or Aristotle , are extremely low .
The chances that one ’ s local clergyman has a degree in Classical Civilization or Philosophy are similarly low .
The Bible and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the public sphere .
Teenagers are far more likely to learn “ The Five Stages of Grief ” than the Seven Deadly Sins or the Four Cardinal Virtues .
We are faced with the daunting task of trying to restore the premises of a nearly shattered Western culture .
Nonetheless , despair is never constructive .
There are things we can do .
We can keep our eyes peeled for the appearance of wise philosophers , wise poets , wise politicians , and wise citizens , and encourage and support them when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the few remaining journals that have contents of moral and intellectual depth .
We can expose our friends and families to the best that we know of the ancient religious and philosophical traditions of the West .
We can have dinner-table conversations about Socrates or Homer or the Bible instead of about the latest “ reality ” shows .
We can send our children off to a small , intimate liberal arts college to study the Great Books instead of to a mammoth state university to study Abnormal Psychology or Marketing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ literature any level , we can deftly insert material into our courses about historical people and important writings which the prescribed curricula have omitted .
And of course , we can encourage those who would benefit from it to read The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength .
What was possible for Mark Studdock — the realization that much of contemporary Western civilization is built upon lies and errors regarding what is ultimately true — is still possible for any thoughtful person who reads these books .

Editor’s note: Published on August 16, 1945, C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020. This week and next, to mark the book’s three-quarter century anniversary, Evolution News presents a series of essays, reflections, and videos about its themes and legacy.
Dr. Cameron Wybrow is a scholar, teacher, and writer with academic and popular publications on a variety of subjects. He has a particular interest in philosophical and theological critiques of modernity, and hence in the thought of C. S. Lewis.
This post is adapted from Chapter 11 of The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, edited by John G. West. See also:
Why is it that the Gaiuses and Titiuses of the world do not come to the realization that Mark Studdock arrives at? I think the answer, in part, is that Gaius and Titius, and a thousand educators like them (generally armed, these days, with PhDs in Education), operate in a world of pure theory, a world of academic discourse in which the like-minded preach to each other. Mark Studdock was like that, early on in That Hideous Strength. As a fellow of Bracton, he lived in an ivory tower, where the schemes and plots of academic factions were his only reality. But the events in That Hideous Strength force Mark to come to grips with reality. They force him to see what effects ideas have when they get out into the real world of political and social and ethical life. The truth of experience enables him to see the falsehood of bad theory. Our modern academics, on the other hand, have undergone no such life-transforming experiences. Living in an almost completely artificial intellectual environment, protected by tenure, and in no way answerable for the real-life effects of their theories, they can offer teachings about sentiments and morals which, however destructive to society in the long term, are unlikely to rebound upon them in the visceral way that Mark’s teaching rebounded upon him.
Theories of Education
Another part of the answer, I think, is that our theories of education are almost completely dominated nowadays by the social sciences, with very little input from the traditional humanities. And the social sciences are largely oriented to changing the world, in a certain direction which we might politely call “progressive.” This deep commitment to social science as a sort of theoretical basis for social change (as natural science is conceived to be a theoretical basis for technological change) makes modern education theorists generally impatient of old-fashioned humanities education. Why waste time in the hopeless, idealistic task of trying to produce better people (even if there were an objective definition of “better,” which most social scientists deny) when you could be learning the scientific principles that will enable us to control our future social environment, making society better even though people remain as intellectually and morally flawed as ever? This, of course, is exactly the opposite of the vision of education held by Lewis. Education must be based on the cultivation of the mind and heart of the individual, and that cultivation must consist of exposing the students to the best that has been thought and felt and known by human beings across the ages.
If there is any hope, then, of preventing what Lewis called “the abolition of man,” it will not come from our certified experts on education. They are nearly all unrepentant Mark Studdocks who partake wholly of the very spirit of modernity that Lewis was criticizing. And their insulation within professional cliques of “education theorists” who speak academese rather than English, and who have almost no meaningful contact with the average member of society, guarantees that very few of them will ever have the life-transforming experience of a Mark Studdock. So the necessary counter-teaching must come from elsewhere. It must come from the few remaining real philosophers (most of whom do not teach in philosophy departments), from the few remaining deep theologians (most of whom do not teach in theology departments), from the few remaining inspired poets and dramatists and novelists and other artists, from the few remaining wise historians, and from the (hopefully not so few) remaining sober, sane, well-balanced parents and citizens who continue to know that we are still under the Tao. These people will still continue to place humanity above abstractions such as “the conquest of nature,” “science,” and “progress.”
When Institutional Supports Crumble
To be sure, such people are in a weaker position to influence the direction of public life than they were in Lewis’s time. The institutional supports which still existed, in some measure, in Lewis’s day, are now almost entirely gone. The chances that a high school student of today will learn Latin, or read some Herodotus, or will even hear the names of Augustine or Aristotle, are extremely low. The chances that one’s local clergyman has a degree in Classical Civilization or Philosophy are similarly low. The Bible and the theological tradition have been steadily pushed out of the public sphere. Teenagers are far more likely to learn “The Five Stages of Grief” than the Seven Deadly Sins or the Four Cardinal Virtues. We are faced with the daunting task of trying to restore the premises of a nearly shattered Western culture.
Nonetheless, despair is never constructive. There are things we can do. We can keep our eyes peeled for the appearance of wise philosophers, wise poets, wise politicians, and wise citizens, and encourage and support them when we identify them. We can financially support the few remaining journals that have contents of moral and intellectual depth. We can expose our friends and families to the best that we know of the ancient religious and philosophical traditions of the West. We can have dinner-table conversations about Socrates or Homer or the Bible instead of about the latest “reality” shows. We can send our children off to a small, intimate liberal arts college to study the Great Books instead of to a mammoth state university to study Abnormal Psychology or Marketing. If we are teachers of history or literature any level, we can deftly insert material into our courses about historical people and important writings which the prescribed curricula have omitted. And of course, we can encourage those who would benefit from it to read The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength. What was possible for Mark Studdock — the realization that much of contemporary Western civilization is built upon lies and errors regarding what is ultimately true — is still possible for any thoughtful person who reads these books.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-21--Why Water Is Important for Human Life — A Doctor Explains

On a classic episode of ID the Future , we bring you a conversation between biologist Ray Bohlin and physician @ @ @ @ @ the body ’ s wondrous control systems for using water .
Dr. Glicksman is a @ @ @ @ @ an extended series of posts at Evolution News “ The Designed Body.
” Download the @ @ @ @ @ here .

Photo credit: Mrjn Photography, via Unsplash.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, we bring you a conversation between biologist Ray Bohlin and physician Howard Glicksman. They discuss the body’s wondrous control systems for using water. Dr. Glicksman is a medical doctor and author of an extended series of posts at Evolution News “The Designed Body.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-21--The Abolition of Man and the Advent of the Posthuman

Editor ’ s note : Published on August 16 , 1945 , C. S. Lewis ’ s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020 , putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis ’ s non-fiction work , The Abolition of Man .
To mark the former book ’ s three-quarter century anniversary , Evolution News presents a series of essays , reflections , and videos about its themes and legacy .
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland , MI .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Spirituality : The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition .
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis on Science , Scientism , and Society , edited by John G. West .
Professor Julian Savulescu is the head of the Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University and a leading proponent of human enhancement , the school of thought that promotes the progressive use of biotechnologies to improve human intellect , moral reasoning , and other traits such as physical strength .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and destructive behaviors point indisputably to the need to employ technology and education to change human nature ; either we take this path or we face extinction as a species .
In Savulescu ’ s view , rapidly advancing brain science will provide some of the data necessary to shaping a better human race : “ Once we understand the basis of human brain development , we will be able to augment normal brain development in a way that couldn ’ t naturally occur.
” But smarter people are not necessarily better people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people is found in a deeper understanding of human biology .
“ [ T ] here is reason to believe that even aggression is something that can be understood in terms of its biological underpinnings.
” A clue to human aggression is discovered in “ a mutation in the monoamine oxidase A gene , ” which in the presence of “ early social deprivation ” has been linked to “ criminal behavior ” in at least one study .
Savulescu also notes that “ [ w ] e ’ ve been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration of drugs , ” Prozac providing one prominent example .
Other drugs have been shown “ to promote trust and willingness to take risks and recovery of trust after betrayal.
” According to Savulescu , genetic treatments , improved pharmaceuticals , and moral education will hasten the emergence of a new and better human race .
However , more is needed , including worldwide cooperation “ in a way that humans have never so far cooperated.
” We live in dangerous times , and greater dangers lie ahead .
Weapons technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race .
At the same time “ liberal democracy ” fails to promote “ any particular set of values or particular moral education ” as it seeks to guarantee “ maximum freedom.
” Why are personal freedoms a risk factor ?
The answer is found in a condition theologians might call fallen human nature : “ We have a human nature that is severely limited in terms of its origins and in terms of its capacity to respond to these new challenges.
” Human nature thus requires restraint , modification , or both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : weapons of mass destruction , a fragmented political scene , excessive devotion to individual freedoms , and an unreliable nature .
Only aggressive research aimed at helping us to “ understand our moral limitations and the ways to overcome these ” will produce the scientifically grounded ethics needed to “ decide how we should reshape our nature.
” Employing a vivid analogy , Savulescu affirms that Western culture is entering a dangerous “ Bermuda Triangle with liberal democracy in the position of Miami , radical technological advance in the position of Bermuda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the position of Puerto Rico.
” To “ avoid entering this triangle ” will mean reducing “ one of our commitments to these points.
” It is neither likely nor desirable that we would restrain technology , so Bermuda remains on the map .
Savulescu continues : So , liberal Miami is threatened and the dubious Puerto Rico of human nature is clearly targeted for radical change .
Of the three points of the Savulescu Triangle only technological Bermuda is safe , a contemporary manifestation of Francis Bacon ’ s island of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new ethics is critical to the task of rescuing lost humanity .
“ I believe that we should be promoting certain sets of values and engaging in moral education , ” says Savulescu .
Tacking away from Miami will require reducing consumerism and accepting “ a lower standard of living.
” Political and economic austerity are also necessary .
“ We ’ ll need to accept an ethics of restraint , and we ’ ll need to adopt long-term strategies that go beyond a typical electoral term of three to five years.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherence to liberalism that we ’ ve so far enjoyed ” may also have to go .
Of course , human nature will not quickly abandon a comfortable life for a new austerity .
After all , we possess “ a set of dispositions that make us very ill-disposed to give up our standard of living , to collectively cooperate to solve the world ’ s global problems.
” Ultimate answers “ may lie not only in terms of our political institutions and the degree to which we curb our commitment to liberalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , help is at hand because Bermuda survives : “ The genetic and scientific revolution that we ’ re a part of today represents a second great human enlightenment.
” We now possess the means of understanding “ the human condition , ” and we are moving toward an “ understanding of our nature as animals , of our dispositions to act , why some people will kill , why some people will give.
” Stopping at nothing , “ we should adopt whatever strategies are most effective at protecting our future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inculcation of various values and ways of living are no doubt an important part of this.
” But the greatest obstacle to our survival and advancement is human nature itself ; it must be changed .
As impossible as such a transformation might seem to a layperson , Savulescu is hopeful .
“ [ I ] t may be that as science progresses , we have at our fingertips the ability to change our nature.
” The power to transform humanity at the genetic level is in our hands , but “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a decision whether we ’ ll use that power.
” 3 This chapter compares certain warnings in C. S. Lewis ’ s The Abolition of Man ( 1944 ) with recent arguments about our obligation to deploy biotechnologies to alter or “ enhance ” the human race .
I begin with Julian Savulescu because he articulates clearly the values of a growing scientific and cultural phenomenon known as the human enhancement movement or Transhumanism .
Not at this point a coordinated effort , human enhancement nonetheless represents the convergence of powerful cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a progressive agenda with an improved humanity as its focus .
Savulescu ’ s comments serve as an entry point for familiarizing ourselves with the goals and the reasoning of the human enhancement movement .
In order to understand Lewis ’ s objectives in The Abolition of Man , particularly the most commented upon third lecture from which the book takes its title , it will be important to set the work in its historical context .
To what specific threats was the great Christian apologist responding in the 1940s ?
Answering this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enhancement proponents did not invent the agenda they advocate .
Today ’ s proponents of biotechnological and ethical improvements to the human race write in a tradition that includes such intellectual luminaries as the eugenics theorist Francis Galton , playwright George Bernard Shaw , scientists such as J.B.S .
Haldane and J. D. Bernal , and science fiction writers H. G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon , all figures with whom Lewis was quite familiar .
A crucial historical development , however , separates today ’ s advocates from their intellectual predecessors and from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technological alterations to the human constitution a matter of speculation only ; they are now vigorously promoted scientific realities awaiting the political and cultural conditions that will allow their implementation .
In an almost uncanny fashion Savulescu ’ s comments reflect key elements of the educational , ethical , and scientific planning that Lewis was concerned to answer in The Abolition of Man as well as in his fictional work , That Hideous Strength ( 1945 ) .
Proposals by Savulescu and others who share his concerns thus provide an ideal opportunity for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s concerns about applied technology in the context of an ascendant Western science operating outside the limits of widespread traditional values Lewis dubbed the Tao .
To Control Rather than Investigate Nature Lewis employed the term scientism when discussing science characterized by principles and practices tending toward controlling rather than investigating nature .
Science joined to modern ideologies also encouraged the kind of kind of centralized planning he targets in The Abolition of Man and elsewhere .
Finally , this pivotal distinction between science and scientism , his derisive fictional portrayals of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provocative comments in letters and essays all raise the question of Lewis ’ s attitude toward science and scientists .
Examining The Abolition of Man in its historical context will provide help in answering this persistent question .
Lewis ’ s arguments regarding technological modifications to human nature merit attention — even urgent attention — in an era in which human genetic structure may soon be shaped according to the moral vision of a relatively small group of decision-makers .
Moreover , his suspicion of scientific planning cut free from traditional values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which technology is advancing at an exponential rate while moral knowledge in the West is declining almost as precipitously .
Tomorrow : “ Why C. S. Lewis Wrote The Abolition of Man.
” • C. S. Lewis , That Hideous Strength ( New York : Macmillan , 1967 ) , 60 .
• Hans Moravec , Mind Children : The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence ( Cambridge MA : Harvard University Press , 1988 ) .
158 .
• Julian Savulescu , “ Unfit for Life : Genetically Enhance Humanity or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Festival of Dangerous Ideas ( Sydney , Australia , 2009 ) .

Editor’s note: Published on August 16, 1945, C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020, putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis’s non-fiction work, The Abolition of Man. To mark the former book’s three-quarter century anniversary, Evolution News presents a series of essays, reflections, and videos about its themes and legacy.
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland, MI. His books include The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition.
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, edited by John G. West.
[Professor Filostrato:] The work is more important than you can yet understand. You will see. C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength1
We are at the start of something quite new in the scheme of things. Hans Moravec, Mind Children2
Professor Julian Savulescu is the head of the Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University and a leading proponent of human enhancement, the school of thought that promotes the progressive use of biotechnologies to improve human intellect, moral reasoning, and other traits such as physical strength. Savulescu has argued that deep moral flaws and destructive behaviors point indisputably to the need to employ technology and education to change human nature; either we take this path or we face extinction as a species.
In Savulescu’s view, rapidly advancing brain science will provide some of the data necessary to shaping a better human race: “Once we understand the basis of human brain development, we will be able to augment normal brain development in a way that couldn’t naturally occur.” But smarter people are not necessarily better people, and so another key to better people is found in a deeper understanding of human biology. “[T]here is reason to believe that even aggression is something that can be understood in terms of its biological underpinnings.” A clue to human aggression is discovered in “a mutation in the monoamine oxidase A gene,” which in the presence of “early social deprivation” has been linked to “criminal behavior” in at least one study. Savulescu also notes that “[w]e’ve been able to manipulate human moral behavior and cooperation through the administration of drugs,” Prozac providing one prominent example. Other drugs have been shown “to promote trust and willingness to take risks and recovery of trust after betrayal.”
Our Deep and Complex Predicament
According to Savulescu, genetic treatments, improved pharmaceuticals, and moral education will hasten the emergence of a new and better human race. However, more is needed, including worldwide cooperation “in a way that humans have never so far cooperated.” We live in dangerous times, and greater dangers lie ahead. Weapons technology makes possible the annihilation of the human race. At the same time “liberal democracy” fails to promote “any particular set of values or particular moral education” as it seeks to guarantee “maximum freedom.” Why are personal freedoms a risk factor? The answer is found in a condition theologians might call fallen human nature: “We have a human nature that is severely limited in terms of its origins and in terms of its capacity to respond to these new challenges.” Human nature thus requires restraint, modification, or both. Our predicament is deep and complex: weapons of mass destruction, a fragmented political scene, excessive devotion to individual freedoms, and an unreliable nature.
Only aggressive research aimed at helping us to “understand our moral limitations and the ways to overcome these” will produce the scientifically grounded ethics needed to “decide how we should reshape our nature.” Employing a vivid analogy, Savulescu affirms that Western culture is entering a dangerous “Bermuda Triangle with liberal democracy in the position of Miami, radical technological advance in the position of Bermuda, and human nature and its limitations in the position of Puerto Rico.” To “avoid entering this triangle” will mean reducing “one of our commitments to these points.” It is neither likely nor desirable that we would restrain technology, so Bermuda remains on the map. Savulescu continues:
We could reduce our commitment to liberalism. We will, I believe, need to relax our commitment to maximum protection of privacy. We’re already seeing an increase in the surveillance of individuals, and that surveillance will be necessary if we’re to avert the threats that those with anti-social personality disorders, psychopathic personality disorders, fanaticism represent through their access to radically enhanced technology.
So, liberal Miami is threatened and the dubious Puerto Rico of human nature is clearly targeted for radical change. Of the three points of the Savulescu Triangle only technological Bermuda is safe, a contemporary manifestation of Francis Bacon’s island of Bensalem.
The Savulescu Triangle
Moral education founded on a new ethics is critical to the task of rescuing lost humanity. “I believe that we should be promoting certain sets of values and engaging in moral education,” says Savulescu. Tacking away from Miami will require reducing consumerism and accepting “a lower standard of living.” Political and economic austerity are also necessary. “We’ll need to accept an ethics of restraint, and we’ll need to adopt long-term strategies that go beyond a typical electoral term of three to five years.” What Savulescu terms “the very extreme adherence to liberalism that we’ve so far enjoyed” may also have to go.
Of course, human nature will not quickly abandon a comfortable life for a new austerity. After all, we possess “a set of dispositions that make us very ill-disposed to give up our standard of living, to collectively cooperate to solve the world’s global problems.” Ultimate answers “may lie not only in terms of our political institutions and the degree to which we curb our commitment to liberalism, but also inside ourselves.” But, help is at hand because Bermuda survives: “The genetic and scientific revolution that we’re a part of today represents a second great human enlightenment.” We now possess the means of understanding “the human condition,” and we are moving toward an “understanding of our nature as animals, of our dispositions to act, why some people will kill, why some people will give.”
Stopping at nothing, “we should adopt whatever strategies are most effective at protecting our future,” which includes “moral education, the inculcation of various values and ways of living are no doubt an important part of this.” But the greatest obstacle to our survival and advancement is human nature itself; it must be changed. As impossible as such a transformation might seem to a layperson, Savulescu is hopeful. “[I]t may be that as science progresses, we have at our fingertips the ability to change our nature.” The power to transform humanity at the genetic level is in our hands, but “it’s up to us to make a decision whether we’ll use that power.”3
Warnings from C. S. Lewis
This chapter compares certain warnings in C. S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man (1944) with recent arguments about our obligation to deploy biotechnologies to alter or “enhance” the human race. I begin with Julian Savulescu because he articulates clearly the values of a growing scientific and cultural phenomenon known as the human enhancement movement or Transhumanism. Not at this point a coordinated effort, human enhancement nonetheless represents the convergence of powerful cultural narratives, mind-boggling technological developments, and a progressive agenda with an improved humanity as its focus. Savulescu’s comments serve as an entry point for familiarizing ourselves with the goals and the reasoning of the human enhancement movement.
In order to understand Lewis’s objectives in The Abolition of Man, particularly the most commented upon third lecture from which the book takes its title, it will be important to set the work in its historical context. To what specific threats was the great Christian apologist responding in the 1940s? Answering this question makes clear that Savulescu and other enhancement proponents did not invent the agenda they advocate. Today’s proponents of biotechnological and ethical improvements to the human race write in a tradition that includes such intellectual luminaries as the eugenics theorist Francis Galton, playwright George Bernard Shaw, scientists such as J.B.S. Haldane and J. D. Bernal, and science fiction writers H. G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon, all figures with whom Lewis was quite familiar. A crucial historical development, however, separates today’s advocates from their intellectual predecessors and from C. S. Lewis. No longer are technological alterations to the human constitution a matter of speculation only; they are now vigorously promoted scientific realities awaiting the political and cultural conditions that will allow their implementation.
In an almost uncanny fashion Savulescu’s comments reflect key elements of the educational, ethical, and scientific planning that Lewis was concerned to answer in The Abolition of Man as well as in his fictional work, That Hideous Strength (1945). Proposals by Savulescu and others who share his concerns thus provide an ideal opportunity for assessing the prophetic nature of Lewis’s concerns about applied technology in the context of an ascendant Western science operating outside the limits of widespread traditional values Lewis dubbed the Tao.
To Control Rather than Investigate Nature
Lewis employed the term scientism when discussing science characterized by principles and practices tending toward controlling rather than investigating nature. Science joined to modern ideologies also encouraged the kind of kind of centralized planning he targets in The Abolition of Man and elsewhere. Finally, this pivotal distinction between science and scientism, his derisive fictional portrayals of some — though not all — scientists, and provocative comments in letters and essays all raise the question of Lewis’s attitude toward science and scientists. Examining The Abolition of Man in its historical context will provide help in answering this persistent question.
Lewis’s arguments regarding technological modifications to human nature merit attention — even urgent attention — in an era in which human genetic structure may soon be shaped according to the moral vision of a relatively small group of decision-makers. Moreover, his suspicion of scientific planning cut free from traditional values needs to be understood in an age in which technology is advancing at an exponential rate while moral knowledge in the West is declining almost as precipitously.
Tomorrow: “Why C. S. Lewis Wrote The Abolition of Man.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-08-22--Why C. S. Lewis Wrote The Abolition of Man

Editor ’ s note : Published on August 16 , 1945 , C. S. Lewis ’ s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020 , putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis ’ s non-fiction work , The Abolition of Man .
To mark the former book ’ s three-quarter century anniversary , Evolution News presents a series of essays , reflections , and videos about its themes and legacy .
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland , MI .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Spirituality : The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition .
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician ’ s Twin : C. S. Lewis on Science , Scientism , and Society , edited by John G. West .
See also : • “ The Abolition of Man and the Advent of the Posthuman “ Profound concerns about the direction of Western education and science prompted C. S. Lewis to pen the three lectures that were first published as The Abolition of Man in 1944 .
In the third talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect the entire subsequent history of the human race will be determined by a few technologists and bureaucratic planners who alter foundational components in human biology .
The three brief chapters making up The Abolition of Man — “ Men without Chests , ” “ The Way , ” and “ The Abolition of Man ” — were originally presented as the Riddell Memorial Lectures at the University of Newcastle in February of 1943 .
In the most discussed lecture and the one from which the book takes its title , Lewis warns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attains , by eugenics and scientific education , the power to make its descendants what it pleases , all men who live after it are the patients of that power.
” Far from being freer and better humans , these new creatures will be “ weaker , not stronger : for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have preordained how they are to use them.
” 1 As a result of sophisticated biotechnology , “ Man ’ s conquest of Nature , if the dreams of some scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.
” Lewis concludes : “ The final stage is come when Man by eugenics , by pre-natal conditioning , and by education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology , has obtained full control over himself .
Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man .
The battle will have been won.
” 2 Lewis ’ s deep suspicion of modernist educational projects , subjectivism about morality , and progressive scientific planning animates these lectures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimentation with humanity as its “ patient , ” a possibility he also explored in That Hideous Strength .
In both works Lewis casts a dark vision of the human race redesigned by scientific programmers who have stepped outside the Tao.3 Should such a project succeed , every individual human being eventually would reflect in her or his very cells a new nature crafted by technologists .
The new human nature would mirror a moral vision founded on popular but largely unexamined mythologies such as progress and evolution , narratives shaping even scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases will be the power of some men to make other men what they please.
” 4 These “ man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irrepressible scientific technique : we shall get a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in any shape they please.
” 5 For the Conditioners — Lewis ’ s label for the scientists and bureaucrats at work on the new humanity — values and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced or repressed in students through education informed by advanced psychology .
Breaking with past traditions , values become an educational outcome to be propagated rather than a deeply rooted moral awareness to be refined , “ the product , not the motive , of education.
” The Conditioners will acquire the capacity to “ produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce.
” 6 Future academic and governmental elites will define “ good ” and then set about producing this invented good in humankind by a combination of educational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they “ know quite well how to produce a dozen different conceptions of good in us , ” though guided by no external , objective standard of good themselves .
Ignoring the timeless Tao , the Conditioners become the arbiters of good and bad.7 But , for Lewis , to step outside the Tao is to sever one ’ s moral connection with all previous human experience , in essence , to cease to be human .
To propagate this moral rupture by technological means is to create , not an improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no longer human ; this is the abolition of man .
• C. S. Lewis , The Abolition of Man ( New York : Macmillan , 1947 ) , 36 .
• Lewis provides readers a formulation of the Tao as an appendix to The Abolition of Man .

Image: Screen shot from That Hideous Strength: C.S. Lewis's Prophetic Warning against the Abuse of Science.
Editor’s note: Published on August 16, 1945, C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength is a dystopian novel that eerily reflects the realities of 2020, putting into a memorable fictional form ideas expressed in Lewis’s non-fiction work, The Abolition of Man. To mark the former book’s three-quarter century anniversary, Evolution News presents a series of essays, reflections, and videos about its themes and legacy.
James A. Herrick is the Guy Vander Jagt Professor of Communication at Hope College in Holland, MI. His books include The Making of the New Spirituality: The Eclipse of the Western Religious Tradition.
This post is adapted from Chapter 10 of The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society, edited by John G. West. See also:
Profound concerns about the direction of Western education and science prompted C. S. Lewis to pen the three lectures that were first published as The Abolition of Man in 1944. In the third talk Lewis argued famously that the power to affect the entire subsequent history of the human race will be determined by a few technologists and bureaucratic planners who alter foundational components in human biology.
The three brief chapters making up The Abolition of Man — “Men without Chests,” “The Way,” and “The Abolition of Man” — were originally presented as the Riddell Memorial Lectures at the University of Newcastle in February of 1943. In the most discussed lecture and the one from which the book takes its title, Lewis warns that “if any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power.” Far from being freer and better humans, these new creatures will be “weaker, not stronger: for though we may have put wonderful machines in their hands we have preordained how they are to use them.”1 As a result of sophisticated biotechnology, “Man’s conquest of Nature, if the dreams of some scientific planners are realized, means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men.” Lewis concludes: “The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will have been won.”2
A Deep Suspicion
Lewis’s deep suspicion of modernist educational projects, subjectivism about morality, and progressive scientific planning animates these lectures. He was particularly concerned about biotechnological experimentation with humanity as its “patient,” a possibility he also explored in That Hideous Strength. In both works Lewis casts a dark vision of the human race redesigned by scientific programmers who have stepped outside the Tao.3 Should such a project succeed, every individual human being eventually would reflect in her or his very cells a new nature crafted by technologists. The new human nature would mirror a moral vision founded on popular but largely unexamined mythologies such as progress and evolution, narratives shaping even scientific planning. Lewis wrote famously, “For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases will be the power of some men to make other men what they please.”4 These “man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irrepressible scientific technique: we shall get a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in any shape they please.”5
For the Conditioners — Lewis’s label for the scientists and bureaucrats at work on the new humanity — values and emotions are mere physical phenomena to be produced or repressed in students through education informed by advanced psychology. Breaking with past traditions, values become an educational outcome to be propagated rather than a deeply rooted moral awareness to be refined, “the product, not the motive, of education.” The Conditioners will acquire the capacity to “produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce.”6
Future academic and governmental elites will define “good” and then set about producing this invented good in humankind by a combination of educational technique and biotechnology. According to Lewis, they “know quite well how to produce a dozen different conceptions of good in us,” though guided by no external, objective standard of good themselves. Ignoring the timeless Tao, the Conditioners become the arbiters of good and bad.7 But, for Lewis, to step outside the Tao is to sever one’s moral connection with all previous human experience, in essence, to cease to be human. To propagate this moral rupture by technological means is to create, not an improved human race, but a race that is no longer human; this is the abolition of man.
Tomorrow, “C. S. Lewis, Science, and Science Fiction.”
Notes