Theistic evolution suggests that God used evolution as a tool to create life. It differs from intelligent design in that it does not look for any evidence to support this position, but rather it assumes that it is true. Several advocates of theistic evolution have claimed that this paradigm fully resolves the conflicts between science and religion. Surprisingly, several scientists have agreed. On the surface, this claim appears true. But if one digs a little deeper, then we find that nothing could be further from the truth.

Theistic evolution is based on 2 axioms: 1) the God of the Bible exists 2) man can observe the world around him accurately, conduct experiments, propose theories and develop laws to describe these observations. This assumption is called the observable axiom.

Science is based on two axioms: 1) the observable axiom 2) the naturalistic axiom. The naturalistic axiom states that all events have a naturalistic explanation. That is everything can be explained by physics, math, chemistry and biology. As a corollary of the naturalistic axiom, it follows that God (if He exists) never does anything that we can observe either directly or indirectly. It also follows that God is not required because science will eventually explain both the origin of life and the universe. So while the naturalistic axiom is not so bold as to just say that God does not exist, it does make both Him redundant and unnecessary.

Evolution is a subset of science. It relies on the same axioms. As the next article will show, evolution enabled science to adopt the naturalistic axiom in the first place. Before Darwin, science only relied on the observable axiom.

To summarize: the naturalistic axiom is the assumption that denies the existence of God. Science relies heavily on this axiom. Evolution is a subset of science, and thus it too relies on this axiom. Theistic evolution just like intelligent design is not compatible with science. Both intelligent design and theistic evolution support the idea that God used evolution as a tool to create life, but only intelligent design offers evidence to support this claim.

Science requires the naturalistic axiom to function (see next article). Nevertheless, most scientists are not athiests. This is possible because most leave the naturalistic axiom at work. They use the axiom as a tool to guide their research, to interpret results from experiments, to direct their lectures, and to influence their converstation and correspondence with other scientists. So while the naturalistic axiom is a necessary part of their job, they leave it at work and do not allow it to influence their personal beliefs.