The folly of compromise on things related to divinity.

Theistic Evolution: It seems a parodox. I suppose if one was a deist, one could accept this stance. My problem with that stance is that this is a lazy position! At least the athiest is trying to explain the universe, however impossible a task it is! At least the Christian attempts to show how he sees God in the universe through his philosophy, science, and theology! You're just being apathetic if you're settling for the obvious truth combined with "established scientific thought", which would be that God created the world, which you can observe, yet left it to develop on its own through the means of evolution, which is what scientists shout until they're hoarse and yet are barely heard. It's an empty compromise, for your theology is still basically corrupt, is it not?

And yet CS Lewis believed it.

Taken from: http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm
On Creation: Lewis believed that evolution was true to an extent in the past, but that it will be superseded in the future (MC, p.169). "... for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men. ... For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself ... [Eventually,] God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon this organism" (PP, pp.133,77). "... Man, the highest of the animals" (MC, p.139); "... but he (man) remains still a primate and an animal" (RP, pp.115,129); "If ... you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection" (PP, p.72) "He made an earth at first 'without form and void' and brought it by degrees to its perfection" (M, p.125). Nature's "pregnancy has been long and painful and anxious, but it has reached its climax" (MC, p.172). He held that the Genesis account came from Pagan and mythical sources -- "I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical." (RP, p.110).

It would be difficult for me to believe this and not merely dismiss it as I did years ago if I had not recently read from his book that said that "some pagans belong to Christ..and some Christians are slowly losing their Christianity". This is deplorable doctrine and pitiable to the extreme that a man so obviously gifted as he would fall into such folly. The belief in theistic evolution permeated throughout his doctrine or so I hear. I could easily imagine that, for if you can't take Genesis 1:1-2 literally, what can you know to take literally? If some of the Bible is merely symbolic while it's written in a literal sense, then how much of it is erroneously written in an incorrect sense? I would be lost.

At this point, I have trouble dismissing him as "non-Christian", but I, in thinking about it, thought that but for the grace of God, that title describes us all. None of us deserve anything, but a life of servitiude and then eternity in flames. Whatever God willed was done, so at this point I think it sufficent that we either at the least take Mr. Lewis' writings with a grain of salt or not at all. My writing will progress, I trust, to the point where it makes more sense and flows better, but for the present time, I apologize for my mistakes in this paragraph.