Naturalism and Theistic Evolution are Incompatible

Darwinists (naturalists) usually admit that their theory excludes the possibility of God. Many acquiecse particularly when they debate this issue in public, (Dawkins for example) and even more in private. Non-Darwinian evolution of a Theistic variety, is completely incompatible with Darwinism since the former is dependent upon a creator, a "designer", a transcendent "planner" who not only "fixes" the initial physical laws and constants of the Universe and all biological life, but who continues to intercede in order to allow all matter, energy, space, and time to continue in existence. If the latter portion of the paradigm is removed, the theory becomes Deism, (not theistic evolution), which is clearly incompatible with Christian doctrine.

Darwinism postulates something entirely different, that is, diametrically opposed to either Theistic Creation or Theistic Evolution. It postulates that the entire panoply of Biological life on this planet is the result of an unplanned, non-designed, "accidental" process in the absence of a transcendent designer, ie., random, undirected (mutational) change, survival of the fittest, and common descent with modification. The cosmic variety of the theory was extended by Carl Sagan, and refers to the universe, which in the most recent variation, appeals to multiple "other" universes about which we can know nothing, in order to escape the implications of a finite beginning (The Inflationary Big Bang). Only recently have many origin of life researchers (virtually all Darwinists BTW) been willing to admit that they must appeal to extra-terrestrial sources (either active or passive) for the origin of life on Earth, so-called "panspermia", as the a biogenesis theories available to date have been abysmal failures.

While classical Darwinism is not dependent on a terrestrial origin of life on the Earth, the absence of evidence for it clearly implicitly weakens the theory, as does the total lack of an adequate information source for the Biological Genome, even at a minimal gene product size of 400-500, such as in mycoplasma genitalium, (noting that the smallest theoretical size limit for a free-standing genome is in the 250 range, not that much different). Yet the level of complexity seen at even the unicellular level of so-called "primitive" bacteria such as that similar to cyanobacteria, (3.6 billion years old), is staggering even with an organism in the genome size of mycoplasma genitalium,(400-500).

In other words, the very earliest unicellular life on Earth was very "complex" not primitive at all, a veritable factory in terms of organization, and function. Therefore, 1) we have life arising suddenly, (see below), 2) no explanation for how it arose on Earth, 3)and yet it is very complex from the beginning, with an enormous degree of complex and specified information content. Specifically, if we accept the scientific data that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, (determined by multiple different published repeated techniques), that the earth had life-incompatible impact events (constant asteroid bombardment) between 4.5 billion and roughly 3.9 billion years ago, ( not in contention according to the astrophysical data), and if the oldest fossils date to at least 3.6 billion years ago, (based on carbonaceous C(12) enriched dating processes, that leaves less than 300 million years in which to "evolve" complex unicellular life on the Earth, that is, life (Biology) from non-life (Physical Chemistry). Even most rabid Darwinists agree that is precious orders of magnitude too little time, some have postulated that not even trillions of years would be enough time, based on the improbability of undirected, random assembly of even appropriate amino acids into functioning 3D proteins. Hence, the appeal to "panspermia". However, that only moves the problem off the Earth, 5) we are still left to explain the origin of a 15 billion year old universe, and are left to explain the origin of life off the Earth. This obviously, is no great consolation to Darwinists.

Additional problems with the Neo-Darwinian synthesis are well known, including 6) the inapplicability of the Urey-Miller experiments of the 1950's due to incorrect assumptions about the early atmosphere of the Earth as reducing, control of contaminating side-reactions, etc. including the racemic mixture of amino acids produced in comparison with the levo-rotatory nature of those found in biologically active proteins, 7) the almost total lack of predicted intermediaries in the fossil record, 8) the Cambrian "Explosion", 9) the admitted "faking" of Haeckel's Embryo pictures, 10) the mistaken conclusions drawn from Darwin's finches and the Peppered Moths, as well as the Four Winged Fruit Flies debacle, and the now known problems with postulating Archaeopteryx as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. This is in no way a comprehensive list, but we feel duty bound for the benefit of those who may be unfamiliar with the details to outline at least some of the objections to Darwinism, particularly since many of the visitors to this site are professing Christians.

On a related aspect of the topic, it has come to the attention of the CCWV that questions have arisen regarding the presumed acceptance of Darwinian Evolution by the Roman Catholic Church. Based on the Enclyclicals of Pope Pius the XII and of John Paul II (1), an individual is justified in considering Theistic evolution or Theistic Creationism as a Roman Catholic, one is not allowed to embrace Darwinism or the Neo Darwinian Synthesis (and remain true to the Catholic faith), or any other theory which removes the need for a transcendent designer of the Universe, or for the constant continual intercession of that designer.

This has been made abundantly clear for 2000 years of church history, has not changed to date, and will not change based on the clear evidence in scripture, as well as the historical and magisterial tradition of the Roman Catholic Church,(RCC). The RCC does not accept any theory of life's origins which omits the need for a transcendent designer who either creates life or allows it to evolve by the setting of natural laws, and a transcendent being who continues to keep His creation in existence thereafter.

JPII's encyclical on Faith and Reason supplies no evidence that he supports Darwinism, and no evidence that he repudiated any of the writings included in the encyclical of Pope Pius XII. His only statement which refers to evolution as a theory of origins E/W is qualified by speaking of various "theories". He has made abundantly clear that the Roman Catholic must not subscribe to any evolutionary theory of Biologic life that is not directed, and planned, by a transcendent being {God} who is not only the author of the Universe and all life, but who also continues to intercede in keeping His creation in existence).

In an effort to be more specific, it is possible for Theistic evolution to be the correct Biological "Origins" theory. It would appear doubtful however, on the basis of all the evidence from scripture and science (both physical and biological). Pope John Paul II has been clear in his teaching that both General Revelation (evidence from physical and Biological science) as well as scripture (Special Revelation) are both important forms of the Revelation of God to man, and that a complete review of the issue requires the consideration of all the scientific and scriptural data that can be brought to bear on this issue. While it is clear that a Roman Catholic or any Christian for that matter, can consider Theistic Evolution, (Non-Darwinian Evolution), CCWV does not "presently" favor it. Instead it would appear that some form of either progressive creation in at least 3 and perhaps 4 or even more separate creation events, (the cosmos, life, and Human Beings including a literal set of first parents {Adam and Eve}, at a minimum), is best supported by all of the data. We do not agree that either Darwinism or "macroevolution" is supportable after reviewing all of the scientific and biblical evidence, in fact we do not believe it is supportable even on the basis of the scientific evidence alone. On that point, we agree with the advocates of Intelligent Design who have demonstrated on the basis of probability and information theory (Dembski, "The Design Inference" etc) that the specified complexity (irreducible complexity) present in living things (Behe, "Darwin's Black Box") is incompatible with chance alone, or natural law, but is compatible with Intelligent Design. Behe, Berlinsky, Thaxton, Kenyon, Ross, Denton, Nelson, Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Newman, Davis, Moreland, Craig, Hartwig-Scherer, Johnson, Schaefer, Scherer, Schloss, Bradley, all have written on this subject extensively and include: Molecular Biologists, astrophysicists, philosophers, Mathematicians, Engineers, Law Professor, Medical Doctor, Physical Anthropologist, Theologians, Chemists, Evolutionary Biologist, Microbiologists, many of whom converted to Christianity after determining that the Darwinian paradigm is unsupportable on the basis of the scientific evidence. The list of former Darwinists grows daily. Many of these individuals have and are still publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals despite several having been the victims of discrimination because of their stands in opposition to Darwinism.