My point is that 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. doesn’t hold the same water now that it did when he wrote those words. From the accidental splash we can know far more than Lewis could have ever imagined.
I just don’t get the quote you posted, the science and logic behind it just seem pure crap to me. Big red flag is the use of ‘why’ as opposed to ‘how’, and insertion of the word ‘mere’.
I come to the conclusion based on what you quoted. His point seems to be that if there was an accident then the rest of any chain must also accidents This seems a highly questionable claim, but let’s run with it. He’s clearly saying that we can’t be here because of accidents, so we must be here because of the actions of his particular ‘god’. Now, if he actually believes that any accident in a chain makes all that follows an accident then God always has to act on everything. This would seem that God had to control everything least an accident creep in. If there are no accidents, that sounds like predestination to me.