That's not what I read in that chapter. I might be biased from childhood here, or perhaps usefully forewarned, but when I was ten years old I attempted reads of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Silver Chair (didn't make it to the end of that one) and decided that CS Lewis couldn't write for children. I couldn't articulate why exactly at that stage, but probably it was because the writing is not honest, which I think is important for children.What Lewis showed in "Religion and Science" in GOD IN THE DOCK was that uniformitarianism has only mathematics. They cannot answer any other question. He called that Nature (Cap N). So in his analogy of the missing coins, a mathematician has no way to answer the type of question being dealt with, which should be taken up by a 'detective' or a 'psychic' or a 'psychiatrist'. A person would almost immediately conclude that something/one outside of nature (the phsyical world, not Uniformitarianism) acted in nature.
You understand what I mean by that, I hope. If the allegory, or whatever you want to call it is false, then it is a case of lying to children by analogy, and because christianity is full of adult themes unsuitable for children, it is unfairly presenting a miserable view of humanity, which only requires a quick scan of The Screwtape Letters to see laid out for adults.
So I wouldn't go so far as to say he couldn't write, but in that chapter of God in the Dock he used his facility with language to hide the emptiness of what he was saying. At best it looks like wishful thinking, or wishful dreaming.
What if it could be shown that there is a universal supermeddler? Well, it hasn't, but the consequences of that claim are much more specific than his waffle. One creationist claim is that the speed of light has changed and that explains why things look older than they really are. The argument, as per Lewis (I think) is that you can't tell that the speed of light hasn't changed.
Well, actually you can because the speed of light has some profound implications for the stability of matter. But the most amusing thing for me in that moronic creationist view is that, if you take it seriously, the universe and the earth could actually be much older than 'science' thinks.
Stuart