Tolkien's Views on Creation and Evolution

[R.R.J Tolkien]

As a christian and a creationist I have always been interested in Tolkien's views on creation and evolution. As far as i am aware no in depth scholarly work has been done on his views on this issue. My first sources on him that effected my thoughts on his stance were

-The Letters of J.R.R Tolkien edited by Humphrey Carpenter with the assistance of Christopher Tolkien Houghton Mifflin 2000
-J.R.R Tolkien The Authorized Biography Humphrey carpenter Houghton Mifflin company NY 2000
-The Inklings C.S Lewis J.R.R Tolkien, Charles Williams and their friends. Humphrey Carpenter Harper Collins Publishers 2006
-Ents, Elves, and Eriador the Environmental Vision of J.R.R Tolkien by Matthew Dickerson and Jonathan Evans Kentucky University press 2006.
-The Gospel according to Tolkien visions of the kingdom in middle earth by Ralph C. Wood Westminster John Knox Press 2003
-Finding God in the lord of the rings by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware Salt river 2001


After reading these I was sure he was a biblical creationist as he believed in a literal Adam and Eve, garden of Eden, and a literal fall of man like me, and the majority of Catholics since Tolkien was catholic, through history. When I read the sillmarillion I saw the biblical account of literal creation all over the place further cementing my views. However I new he was also greatly influenced by C.S Lewis on this issue as well. So I purchased this book on Lewis views on evolution.


https://www.amazon.com/Lewis-Anti-Da.../dp/1532607733


I than reread the letters of Tolkien and it seemed he and Lewis were open to and likely accepted at various times the earth was old [not my view]. It seems now to me that they both either old earth creationist, or some form of intelligent design. It is to bad the modern creation movement did not start earlier, I would have like both Lewis and Tolkien's opinions on it, though I think they both may have held this view as well.



Does anyone have information on this subject?

[Huinesoron]

Flipping that around - what information do you have? I know Tolkien was an old-school Catholic, and I remember that he objected to the discarding of the Latin rites (being raised by a priest will do that to you!). And obviously the Silm has a lot of resonances with Genesis.

Middle-earth is much older than Bishop Usher's 6000 years, obviously; there's about that much time between the rising of the Sun and the fall of Sauron, and I believe Tolkien claimed the Fourth Age began six thousand years before the present. So that's 12K back to the awakening of Men, plus however long before that. So, if we assume Tolkien was writing something that would fit in with his idea of real history, he'd have to accept a fair bit of age in there.

But besides that... what have you got? I'm assuming there's no smoking gun, no Letter saying 'As you know, I believe the Earth to have begun in this manner...', but surely your readings have turned up some relevant quotes to share with the Downs.

hS

Edit: Letters #96 seems to be the most relevant. Talking to Christopher in 1945, Tolkien makes the following points:

-'As for Eden, I think most Christians... have been rather bustled and hustled... by the self-styled scientists, and they've sort of tucked Genesis into a lumber-room of their mind as not very fashionable furniture...'
-That this rejection loses the beauty of the whole story even simply 'as a story'.
-That Genesis is a 'myth', in that it '... has not... historicity of the same kind as the NT, which are virtually contemporary documents, while Genesis is separated by we do not know how many sad exiled generations from the Fall...'
-'... but certainly there was an Eden on this very unhappy earth.'
-That the past existence of Eden is proven by: 'the nobler part of the human mind is filled with the thoughts of... peace and goodwill, and with the thought of its loss.'

My feeling from this is that Tolkien views the Bible as an account of the myths of ancient Judea (as we might expect from a man whose day job was myths and legends!), but believes that those myths are based on a lost 'true' Eden. Which is very much the mindset that led to the Book of Lost Tales, come to think of it - and to Frodo's 'original,' of Hey Diddle Diddle.

hS

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Flipping that around - what information do you have? I know Tolkien was an old-school Catholic, and I remember that he objected to the discarding of the Latin rites (being raised by a priest will do that to you!). And obviously the Silm has a lot of resonances with Genesis.

Middle-earth is much older than Bishop Usher's 6000 years, obviously; there's about that much time between the rising of the Sun and the fall of Sauron, and I believe Tolkien claimed the Fourth Age began six thousand years before the present. So that's 12K back to the awakening of Men, plus however long before that. So, if we assume Tolkien was writing something that would fit in with his idea of real history, he'd have to accept a fair bit of age in there.

But besides that... what have you got? I'm assuming there's no smoking gun, no Letter saying 'As you know, I believe the Earth to have begun in this manner...', but surely your readings have turned up some relevant quotes to share with the Downs.

hS

Edit: Letters #96 seems to be the most relevant. Talking to Christopher in 1945, Tolkien makes the following points:

-'As for Eden, I think most Christians... have been rather bustled and hustled... by the self-styled scientists, and they've sort of tucked Genesis into a lumber-room of their mind as not very fashionable furniture...'
-That this rejection loses the beauty of the whole story even simply 'as a story'.
-That Genesis is a 'myth', in that it '... has not... historicity of the same kind as the NT, which are virtually contemporary documents, while Genesis is separated by we do not know how many sad exiled generations from the Fall...'
-'... but certainly there was an Eden on this very unhappy earth.'
-That the past existence of Eden is proven by: 'the nobler part of the human mind is filled with the thoughts of... peace and goodwill, and with the thought of its loss.'

My feeling from this is that Tolkien views the Bible as an account of the myths of ancient Judea (as we might expect from a man whose day job was myths and legends!), but believes that those myths are based on a lost 'true' Eden. Which is very much the mindset that led to the Book of Lost Tales, come to think of it - and to Frodo's 'original,' of Hey Diddle Diddle.

hS

Thanks for asking for sources i surely would have provided had i done an in depth study, I was hoping someone else had. All my info would come from those sources I cannot at the moment off hand remember where. I know most came from his belief in a literal fall of man and a literal historical garden of eden plus some healthy skepticism of evolution when disused by the inklings. That added with the majority position of historic Catholics.


Agreed. That is why when i reread his letters it does seem he did allow for a much older earth than the young earth creation position.



Give me a second and i will see what I can come up with and most.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

“Tolkien believed devoutly that there had once been an Eden on earth, and that mans original sin and subsequent dethronement were responsible for the ills of the world
--J.R.R Tolkien The Authorized Biography Humphrey carpenter Houghton Mifflin company NY 2000

So what led me to my original beliefs on him was the carpenters bios of the inklings and his bio of Tolkien where he speaks many times of the importance of the fall of Tolkiens [and the inklings] worldviews and how it effected their writings. Such as in lotr and the sillmarillion where the fall played a big part along with the genesis creation in Tolkien's writings. They often discussed this matter in their meetings and all held to a literal fall. When Tolkien felt the sadness of seeing dead animals, or thought of memories from his past and felt nostalgia, he connected those feelings to being derived from Eden. Added leiws stance and its effects on Tolkien as well. If you want direct info it can be found in those bios by carpenter. Along with the historic traditional literal creation viewpoint of Catholics that Tolkien held led me to believe he was a creationist.


Myth is reality

Tolkien, yes, compared Christianity [and genesis] to a story, where god is the author, who used real men and real history to tell the story. This in part converted Lewis. Tolkien said of the gospel, that Jesus, God in flesh, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. “There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many skeptical men have accepted as true on its own merits...to reject it leads either to madness or to wrath,” Tolkien went on to say, “This story is supreme and is true. Art has been verified. God is the lord of angels, and of men and of elves, legend and history have met and fused.” Tolkien viewed the gospel as a story that entered history, a true story. “The resurrection…was the greatest fairy story…the gospels tell a fairy story, by the greatest author, who is the supreme artist and author of reality.” So given that lets look at letters 96.







96 To Christopher Tolkien 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford
30 January 1945 (FS 78)
My dearest Chris,

....As for Eden. I think most Christians, except the v. simple and uneducated or those protected in other ways, have been rather bustled and hustled now for some generations by the self-styled scientists, and they've sort of tucked Genesis into a lumber-room of their mind as not very fashionable furniture, a bit ashamed to have it about the house, don't you know, when the bright clever young people called: I mean, of course, even the fideles who did not sell it secondhand or burn it as soon as modern taste began to sneer. In consequence they have indeed (myself as much as any), as you say, forgotten the beauty of the matter even 'as a story'. Lewis recently wrote a most interesting essay (if published I don't know) showing of what great value the 'story-value' was, as mental nourishment – of the whole Chr. story (NT especially). It was a defence of that kind of attitude which we tend to sneer at: the fainthearted that loses faith, but clings at least to the beauty of 'the story' as having some permanent value. His point was that they do still in that way get some nourishment and are not cut off wholly from the sap of life: for the beauty of the story while not necessarily a guarantee of its truth is a concomitant of it, and a fidelis is meant to draw nourishment from the beauty as well as the truth. So that the faintheart 'admirer' is really still getting something, which even one of the faithful (stupid, insensitive, shamefaced) may be missing. But partly as a development of my own thought on my lines and work (technical and literary), partly in contact with C.S.L., and in various ways not least the firm guiding hand of Alma Mater Ecclesia, I do not now feel either ashamed or dubious on the Eden 'myth'. It has not, of course, historicity of the same kind as the NT [that is historical support proof] , which are virtually contemporary documents, while Genesis is separated by we do not know how many sad exiled generations from the Fall, but certainly there was an Eden on this very unhappy earth. We all long for it, and we are constantly glimpsing it: our whole nature at its best and least corrupted, its gentlest and most humane, is still soaked with the sense of 'exile'. If you come to think of it, your (very just) horror at the stupid murder of the hawk, and your obstinate memory of this 'home' of yours in an idyllic hour (when often there is an illusion of the stay of time and decay and a sense of gentle peace) – έίθε γενοίμην, 'stands the clock at ten to three, and is there honey still for tea' – are derived from Eden. As far as we can go back the nobler pan of the human mind is filled with the thoughts of sibb, peace and goodwill, and with the thought of its loss. We shall never recover it, for that is not the way of repentance, which works spirally and not in a closed circle; we may recover something like it, but on a higher plane. Just as (to compare a small thing) the convened urban gets more out of the country than the mere yokel, but he cannot become a real landsman, he is both more and in a way less (less truly earthy anyway). Of course, I suppose that, subject to the permission of God, the whole human race (as each individual) is free not to rise again but to go to perdition and carry out the Fall to its bitter bottom (as each individual can singulariter). And at certain periods, the present is notably one, that seems not only a likely event but imminent. Still I think there will be a 'millenium', the prophesied thousand-year rule of the Saints, i.e. those who have for all their imperfections never finally bowed heart and will to the world or the evil spirit (in modern but not universal terms: mechanism, 'scientific' materialism. Socialism in either of its factions now at war....).




and it goes on.

[Morthoron]

As an atheist, I would caution a 1+1=2 view of Tolkien's creation equaling the biblical or Christian concept of the Beginning. Unlike the Christian allegorist and apologist C.S. Lewis, whose literary output leaves me cold (save for The Screwtape Letters, which are hilarious) Tolkien drew on more than just biblical concepts when he created his cosmology, and it was that synthesis of various cultures' mythos that gives his fantasy far more depth and interest. Thus, he could captivate a non-Christian like myself as well as any pedestrian Presbyterian.

First, the idea of music being an integral part of creation is not a Christian concept, but rather familiar to Celtic/Bardic legends (such as in Taliesin), as well as Norse myth (Braggi, the Golden Harp and the Song of Life), and Finnish myth (wherein Väinämöinen fashioned a harp out of salmon bones that was used eventually by sea gods to create the music of the ocean on the beach). There are also such concepts in Hindu (the Rigvedic Hymns) and Aztec myth (Quetzalcoatl and the Music of the Sun).

Second, the Valar's more than coincidental likeness to the Greek Pantheon of gods or of the Norse Æsir, and the hierarchy and marriages found therein. Each individual Vala is endowed with certain powers matching any number of gods/goddesses of the hunt, the sea, crafting, the wood...and wrestling! Mandos is equivalent to the Greek Fates or the Norse Norns with the added dimension of having the responsibilities of Hades.

Third, Melkor is not merely an equivalent of the fallen Angel Lucifer, tempting men's souls, he is rather the corrupter of Arda itself (see "Morgoth's Ring"). Such corruptive deities who scar the very earth, control the seasons and are enemies of light can be found in Slavic, Persian, Finnish and Celtic myth.

Fourth, the other disparate legends and myths that are interwoven throughout Tolkien's early cosmology, everything from the Finnish Kalavela copied to create the tale of Turin Turambar to the Atlantis myth reworked into the Akallabêth (Atalantë in Quenya). The legend of Tilion the moon and Arien the sun used to describe the wayward lunar orbit is very much crafted in the style of Greek and Norse myths, as is Ossë a personification of the capricious, violent and unfathomable sea. Even Angainor (the chain of Melkor) could be compared to the binding of Fenrir with the enchanted Gleipnir. Another that springs to mind is when Luthien sang to release the spirit of Beren and herself from the Halls of Mandos, which has a direct correlation to Orpheus melting the cold heart of Hades to release his love Eurydice from the Underworld.

So, yes, Christian symbology, but there's a whole lotta heathen going on!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

From what I have read above, nothing seems to me like Tolkien could not have seen the "old" stories (=Genesis etc.) as metaphors, in the same sense many modern (=including in his time) Christians/Catholics see them. The Letter 96 quoted above seems to me would make perfect sense exactly in such a case.

I mean, the idea is, most people don't really think about it unless you intentionally push them into answering a specific question, like: "So were the seven days of creation literal or not?" But majority of believers would not think about it. Both Genesis and the fact that somebody dug up a 65 million year old dinosaur can be true at the same time. Because for example the biblical account doesn't really operate with such cathegories. The Bible is not interested in knowing, or asking you, how many years has it been since the Flood. Its core is in something else, it revolves around the following of God and shows the recordings of other people who followed God in their time, they are now the witnesses for those who read it, who can see themselves as parts of the same story (I am sure Tolkien would have liked that metaphore).

So I really don't think Tolkien would have felt the need to create any "either-or" picture in his head. The whole misconception that "science" and "religion" are in some way mutually exclusive comes in large part from modern positivist thinking and everything that followed from there. Which, sure, was up and running still in Tolkien's times. But a massive amount of Catholics also at the time - even Catholic priests - were also scientists, including people who made big work in biology, geology, astronomy... all the while when operating not under the "creationist" paradigm (in the sense of the word as it's mostly used now: literal creation in 7 days etc), but under the paradigm of the science at their time.

The letter 96 quoted above seems to me like showing that Tolkien took Genesis, most of all, as a story. Yes, Gospels are so close to the time of the events they describe that even the geographic details etc we can take as "historical truths"; we can't say the same about the rest. At the same time, if Tolkien imagined Eden as "real" - sure, but such an Eden could have been in Africa a few million years ago, for all practical purposes. The main point is that it doesn't matter where, what matters is that the story is fundamentally true: not in its geographic or chronological cathegories, but it is true always, throughout the history, it is true now, it is true about Tolkien's generation, it is true about current generation. And so on. That's what "myth" is.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As an atheist, I would caution a 1+1=2 view of Tolkien's creation equaling the biblical or Christian concept of the Beginning. Unlike the Christian allegorist and apologist C.S. Lewis, whose literary output leaves me cold (save for The Screwtape Letters, which are hilarious) Tolkien drew on more than just biblical concepts when he created his cosmology, and it was that synthesis of various cultures' mythos that gives his fantasy far more depth and interest. Thus, he could captivate a non-Christian like myself as well as any pedestrian Presbyterian.

First, the idea of music being an integral part of creation is not a Christian concept, but rather familiar to Celtic/Bardic legends (such as in Taliesin), as well as Norse myth (Braggi, the Golden Harp and the Song of Life), and Finnish myth (wherein Väinämöinen fashioned a harp out of salmon bones that was used eventually by sea gods to create the music of the ocean on the beach). There are also such concepts in Hindu (the Rigvedic Hymns) and Aztec myth (Quetzalcoatl and the Music of the Sun).

Second, the Valar's more than coincidental likeness to the Greek Pantheon of gods or of the Norse Æsir, and the hierarchy and marriages found therein. Each individual Vala is endowed with certain powers matching any number of gods/goddesses of the hunt, the sea, crafting, the wood...and wrestling! Mandos is equivalent to the Greek Fates or the Norse Norns with the added dimension of having the responsibilities of Hades.

Third, Melkor is not merely an equivalent of the fallen Angel Lucifer, tempting men's souls, he is rather the corrupter of Arda itself (see "Morgoth's Ring"). Such corruptive deities who scar the very earth, control the seasons and are enemies of light can be found in Slavic, Persian, Finnish and Celtic myth.

Fourth, the other disparate legends and myths that are interwoven throughout Tolkien's early cosmology, everything from the Finnish Kalavela copied to create the tale of Turin Turambar to the Atlantis myth reworked into the Akallabêth (Atalantë in Quenya). The legend of Tilion the moon and Arien the sun used to describe the wayward lunar orbit is very much crafted in the style of Greek and Norse myths, as is Ossë a personification of the capricious, violent and unfathomable sea. Even Angainor (the chain of Melkor) could be compared to the binding of Fenrir with the enchanted Gleipnir. Another that springs to mind is when Luthien sang to release the spirit of Beren and herself from the Halls of Mandos, which has a direct correlation to Orpheus melting the cold heart of Hades to release his love Eurydice from the Underworld.

So, yes, Christian symbology, but there's a whole lotta heathen going on!

Vary good points. He did not of course take only from Genesis but other works as well. However just because that is so it does not negate his belief in a literal fall, garden of eden, or the genesis account of creation. More so it does not show that he accepted evolution or rejected creation. But only that the fact he used some of genesis in his creation does not conclude he accepted it as historical fact by itself. Had he used evolution in the sillmarillion now that would be interesting.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As an atheist, I would caution a 1+1=2 view of Tolkien's creation equaling the biblical or Christian concept of the Beginning. Unlike the Christian allegorist and apologist C.S. Lewis, whose literary output leaves me cold (save for The Screwtape Letters, which are hilarious) Tolkien drew on more than just biblical concepts when he created his cosmology, and it was that synthesis of various cultures' mythos that gives his fantasy far more depth and interest. Thus, he could captivate a non-Christian like myself as well as any pedestrian Presbyterian.

First, the idea of music being an integral part of creation is not a Christian concept, but rather familiar to Celtic/Bardic legends (such as in Taliesin), as well as Norse myth (Braggi, the Golden Harp and the Song of Life), and Finnish myth (wherein Väinämöinen fashioned a harp out of salmon bones that was used eventually by sea gods to create the music of the ocean on the beach). There are also such concepts in Hindu (the Rigvedic Hymns) and Aztec myth (Quetzalcoatl and the Music of the Sun).

Second, the Valar's more than coincidental likeness to the Greek Pantheon of gods or of the Norse Æsir, and the hierarchy and marriages found therein. Each individual Vala is endowed with certain powers matching any number of gods/goddesses of the hunt, the sea, crafting, the wood...and wrestling! Mandos is equivalent to the Greek Fates or the Norse Norns with the added dimension of having the responsibilities of Hades.

Third, Melkor is not merely an equivalent of the fallen Angel Lucifer, tempting men's souls, he is rather the corrupter of Arda itself (see "Morgoth's Ring"). Such corruptive deities who scar the very earth, control the seasons and are enemies of light can be found in Slavic, Persian, Finnish and Celtic myth.

Fourth, the other disparate legends and myths that are interwoven throughout Tolkien's early cosmology, everything from the Finnish Kalavela copied to create the tale of Turin Turambar to the Atlantis myth reworked into the Akallabêth (Atalantë in Quenya). The legend of Tilion the moon and Arien the sun used to describe the wayward lunar orbit is very much crafted in the style of Greek and Norse myths, as is Ossë a personification of the capricious, violent and unfathomable sea. Even Angainor (the chain of Melkor) could be compared to the binding of Fenrir with the enchanted Gleipnir. Another that springs to mind is when Luthien sang to release the spirit of Beren and herself from the Halls of Mandos, which has a direct correlation to Orpheus melting the cold heart of Hades to release his love Eurydice from the Underworld.

So, yes, Christian symbology, but there's a whole lotta heathen going on!

So i responded before in agreement but did some more thinking and reading. The sillmarillion as published was of course his early works and very "northern" in it material. His later sillmarillion took on as Christopher said "theological and philosophical" ideas would have taken on a much more christian form. I am sure the HOME will verify this when i read them. So of course this later published version by Christopher will be more pagan. Having said that

That a single God spoke the world materiall and not, into being is a biblical concept. One god creating and gen 1.26 has been interpreted by many Christians as god working through and with angels in his creation. Angels of course in ME are as tolkien said are maia and valar. Thus when the maia and valar help in creation, it is constant with gen 1.26. Further unlike pagan myths, the angels dont create on their own but are given music by eru and perform the task they were given all comes from god alone. Neither are these co-creators worshiped as in pagan myths.




In tolkiens work "evil" corrupts the very earth and environment. A great book on this is

Ents, Elves, and Eriador the Environmental Vision of J.R.R Tolkien by Matthew Dickerson and Jonathan Evans Kentucky University press 2006.

It does not have to be some angel deity but any evil by nature will corrupt it surroundings. Thus orcs, goblins will do the same.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I than reread the letters of Tolkien and it seemed he and Lewis were open to and likely accepted at various times the earth was old [not my view]. It seems now to me that they both either old earth creationist, or some form of intelligent design. It is to bad the modern creation movement did not start earlier, I would have like both Lewis and Tolkien's opinions on it, though I think they both may have held this view as well.

Does anyone have information on this subject?

I'm really not more than very casually informed about creationism and its various forms and I'm not too interested either so I don't exactly know where you are coming from. But have you read the later volumes of the History of Middle Earth? If I remember correctly, the 10th one, Morgoth's Ring, includes an ambitious but ultimately futile attempt to rewrite the Silmarillion to be more in sync with scientific facts that were well known in the mid 20th century. Such as the vast timespan geological processes need to form the land, the unlikelihood of plant-life before the sun and not least the silliness of a flat earth.

Tolkien wanted the story to resonate true even to us modern people I believe, that we should be able to imagine the stories to really come out of a mythological past in our world. And that this would be hard if it ignored well known scientific facts such as the above mentioned and others.

The old stories where better and the rewrite-attempt was rightly scrapped but it should make it clear that Tolkien accepted the strong scientific evidence that the Earth was very very old and that the surrounding space is vast and even older. I'd suppose he did believe that God created Man in one way or another.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I'm really not more than very casually informed about creationism and its various forms and I'm not too interested either so I don't exactly know where you are coming from. But have you read the later volumes of the History of Middle Earth? If I remember correctly, the 10th one, Morgoth's Ring, includes an ambitious but ultimately futile attempt to rewrite the Silmarillion to be more in sync with scientific facts that were well known in the mid 20th century. Such as the vast timespan geological processes need to form the land, the unlikelihood of plant-life before the sun and not least the silliness of a flat earth.

Tolkien wanted the story to resonate true even to us modern people I believe, that we should be able to imagine the stories to really come out of a mythological past in our world. And that this would be hard if it ignored well known scientific facts such as the above mentioned and others.

I will be reading morgoths ring [and other home]and full in the coming weeks and months and perhaps that will help me answer this question. As for your "scientific facts" those geological processes do not need millions of years, unless we accept uniformitarnism beliefs about the unobservable [ not replete able demonstrable, not science] past. Instead they can be understood within the young earth/global flood paradigm. Yes god made plants before the sun, there was however light gen 1 3-5. God is able to provide light and keep his creation without the sun witch is a part of creation and not god. In fact when the return of the true king happens it will be as it was before the sun

And there shall be night no more; and they need no light of lamp, neither light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
rev 22.5


Just for your info, the catholic church never taught a flat earth and the flat earth society today are evolutionist. But I also must wonder what of the many scientific facts that refute evolution? why dont they count? maybe Tolkien rejected evolution as unscientific as i do. Maybe that is why his world was created. We modern people cannot both accept the discoveries of science and hold on to old and what should be passing away beliefs about the past such as evolution.

Originally Posted by skip spence

The old stories where better and the rewrite-attempt was rightly scrapped but it should make it clear that Tolkien accepted the strong scientific evidence that the Earth was very very old and that the surrounding space is vast and even older. I'd suppose he did believe that God created Man in one way or another.

Perhaps, any evidence tolkien had this view? what strong evidence persuaded him? was he aware of the faults in any claimed evidences and summations? was he aware of the counter arguments? I am unaware if he stated on either side. Maybe he understood creation had to be true or science could not be as his close friend Lewis often argued.




If Evolution Were True Would Science be Possible?

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if*their*thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’
-C.S. Lewis (1898–1963),*The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.


Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations. So why should i trust them that what they are telling me is true? If there just evolved slimeology how do i know they have the truth? Why should i aspect one accident [our brain] to understand another accident the world? Would i believe bacteria or chemicals if they taught a class on science? Were just higher animals there is no reason to trust them or to know for sure they are telling the truth. We could not know that we were even viewing the world properly. How do we know our eyes, ears, brain, and memory are getting the right information? There is no way to know. We could be in some matrix world or as evolutionist recently in scientific American said we could be like a fish in a bowl that is curved giving us a distorted view of reality.[P 70 the theory of everything scientific American oct 2010 ]

Science would be impossible unless our memories were giving accurate info as well as our senses such as our eyes and ears . Laws of logic are needed as well. How does matter produce a organism with memory? Or a consciousness. If this comes from mere machines [us] they why would not machines gain consciousnesses? Science needs us to be able to know our senses are giving us the correct information, our eyes ears memory etc how do we know we are correctly interpreting actual reality? Also regularity in time space-uniformity [not uniformitarism] is needed to do science and to have knowledge otherwise our experiments would be pointless, and we would not be able to make any predictions.

Yet the universe is understandable, we assume the universe is logical and orderly as it obeys mathematical laws. That is how we can make predictions. Freedom to chose and consider various options free will not deterministic “dance to the sound of our genes” as Richard Dawkins described it. In fact if evolution is true evolutionist only believe in evolution because the chemicals in there brain are making them believe that, they did not come to some objective decision but random mutations that gave a survival advantage make them. evolutionist say anyone should be rational with beliefs logic etc is inconstant with evolution after all were just evolved pond scum, it assumes we were created.


But if creation is true than i would expect us as created by a intelligent creator to be able to properly understand nature. I would expect to be able to know im getting the right information, that i can trust that we are in a orderly universe that follows laws that make science possible. so that we were able to do repeatable* lab experiments etc. That there would be things like laws of logic, reliability of our memory, reliability of our senses, that our eyes, ears are accurately giving us the correct information, information to be able to do science in the first place. If biblical creation were not true than we could not know anything if we were not created by god we would have no reason to trust our senses, and no way to prove or know for sure.



I would however love to invite you to such a debate on the age of the earth. I have on many forums debated this very issue and would love to with you. PM me if you are inters ted and we can on another forum.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

Evolution undermines the preconditions necessary for rational thought, thereby destroying the very possibility of knowledge and science. Evolutionist say we are nothing but random matter and chemicals getting together for a survival advantage. They say we are the result of hydrogen gas, than rain on rocks, than millions of years of mutations.

Might I suggest you keep your debates to strictly Tolkien and not to the larger evolution v. creationism quagmire? I am sure flat-earthers and people who rule their lives by the zodiac all believe fervently in their certain idiosyncratic dogma, but it has no place here.

This topic, much like politics or religion in general, can lead to some rather ugly outcomes. Please refrain. Thank you in advance.

[R.R.J Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Might I suggest you keep your debates to strictly Tolkien and not to the larger evolution v. creationism quagmire? I am sure flat-earthers and people who rule their lives by the zodiac all believe fervently in their certain idiosyncratic dogma, but it has no place here.

This topic, much like politics or religion in general, can lead to some rather ugly outcomes. Please refrain. Thank you in advance.

I will do. However when you attempted to do the same against creation, i thought it ok i respond. I also have no issues with your holding onto your beliefs as determined as a flat earther regardless of science. I also did not even bring up creation vs evolution stuff besides one example that tolkien and lewis used and were aware of. I do however enjoy that discussion but as you said this is a Tolkien forum, I shall stay to topic.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I will do. However when you attempted to do the same against creation, i thought it ok i respond. I also have no issues with your holding onto your beliefs as determined as a flat earther regardless of science. I also did not even bring up creation vs evolution stuff besides one example that tolkien and lewis used and were aware of. I do however enjoy that discussion but as you said this is a Tolkien forum, I shall stay to topic.

Dude, lose the dogma. I said no such thing about being against creation, other than not believing it personally. I merely pointed out your artificial constraints on what Tolkien was writing limits the overall effect, which is a synthesis of many myths, not an adherence to one. Tolkien once floated the idea of creating a "Mythology for England", which is why many sections of The Silmarillion that I pointed out are not Christian at all, but all wound together brilliantly to make a greater whole. What made Tolkien's work great is that any symbology was subsumed in the text. As he stated himself, "the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."

Not overt, not proselytizing. I would not have continued to read it for nearly 5 decades if I felt I was being preached to. Like on this thread, for instance.

And with that, I will post on this thread no more. There is nothing mirthful here that should be in the "Middle-earth Mirth" part of the forum.