Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The thread involves Darwins theory of evolution, a scientific theory, and Catholicism, which involves theology. This thread involves both science and theology in this regard. Why wouldn’t you think science is involved?
 
What makes you think this? Evidence has been presented, why don’t you believe this can be constructive towards answering the question?
 
I like the way you think, amigo!

Fitting evolution into the Scriptures requires such contortions that death is the result - one has to MURDER the Scriptures to accommodate it. To murder Scripture is to effectively ignore Scripture. What perverse form of Catholicism ignores Scripture?

Evolution is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind and it is demonic in origin. Shepherds who are too blind to recognise a wolf are not fit to be shepherds, so the incompetent Church leaders who have given the wolf of evolution access to the flock have a lot to answer for. It is a fact that more than a few Catholics have abandoned the faith due to accepting this pseudo-scientific fable. And to think that this SATANIC LIE is fed to millions of CHILDREN in Catholic schools is both disgraceful and disturbing.
 
Last edited:
Evolution is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind and it is demonic in origin.
Setarcos, please note. Do you feel you’ve gained knowledge from this statement (I mean about the subject matter, not the poster)?
 
Last edited:
Any senseless trick is acceptable to evo-theists in their quest to force evolution into Scripture - being theologically inconsistent, for example. When respect for the Word is close to zero, all sorts of nonsense are possible.
 
In Genesis 1, each of the six days of creation are demarcated by “there was an evening and there was morning”. Why would the Lord insert these words if he didn’t want the reader to think that the Scriptures are OBVIOUSLY referring to a normal day of 24 hours?
Psst… a “normal day of 24 hours” happens as a result of the rotation of the earth and the appearance of “sunrise” and “sunset”. The first creation narrative has an “evening” and “morning” before the sun is created. Are you sure you want to stick with “literal 24-hour day”?
Why on earth would he do that if he didn’t want us to believe that the six days of creation are six normal days of 24 durarion?
Wait… you’re asking why the command to observe the Sabbath references back to the first ‘Sabbath rest’? :roll_eyes:
Furthermore, if billions of years of evolution is the truth, why did Yahweh GO OUT OF HIS WAY to make readers of his Scriptures believe something utterly different - ie, creation over a few days?
Because the Bible teaches salvation, not science.
And it was six “days”, not six years or six moons - in ancient times, a “day” was the smallest known measurement of time.
Yeah… I guess all those references to times of the day in the OT, let alone the Gospels, were inserted later.
Allegory? What nonsense.
I’m sorry that you think Church teaching is nonsense. 🤷‍♂️

From the Catholic.com tract on ‘creation and Genesis’:
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took.
 
It’s interesting that you mention Turkey - that country recently banned the teaching of evolution in schools. Respect! Our Muslum brethren there are dealing with this mad dog in a manner that befits it - shoot it dead. Dear Catholic Church, please follow suit!

Don’t worry, real science won’t suffer in the slightest degree as a result of not accepting evolution. Despite all the hype, the theory that all life evolved from a unicelllar organism is actually completely USELESS to science in any practical sense. The theory of evolution needs biology, but biology doesn’t need the theory of evolution. But that’s another story for another thread.
 
Last edited:
Don’t worry, real science won’t suffer in the slightest degree as a result of not accepting evolution.
How do you feel about cosmology, the estimated age of the universe, the big bang…
 
The claims of science depend on the reasoning and intelliegence of fallible man. Therefore science is fallible. If you choose fallible science over the infallible Scriptures, you are falling into the “evoluion” trap that Satan set for you. God tests everyone.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Reality cannot contradict Scripture. Evolution is not reality.
 
Last edited:
The two accounts of genesis cannot contradict each others accounts if we are to take any stock in their reflection on the truths of creation as divinely inspired works. Any so called co-mingling of the accounts would not only be proper but necessary in order to gain a fuller picture of the genesis events. One would expect them to be complementary to each other.
Unfortunately if you are taking the first account and slotting the 2nd account into day 6 of the first account, then you are doing it wrong. The 2 accounts are narrated with different purposes.

The first account shows the sequence of how plants and animals arose in relation to man. The second account focused on man and how he was made into a living being from primal “dust”. How man was infused with a soul. Plants and animals are not mentioned. This account is therefore not meant to be sequential in relation to other plants/animals as in the first account. It is not wrong to say that plants/animals arose from “dust” also since everything rose from stardust. You try to force fit the 2 accounts when these 2 accounts are independent.

Genesis wasn’t meant to be read with the eyes of an evolutionist. It is just amusing to see people armed with Darwin’s textbooks trying to cross reference an ancient text as if it makes sense.
 
If you honestly believe Christ’s Church is being prevailed against by the gates of Hell, contrary to Christ’s promise, by saying evolution does not contradict Truth so long as the necessary theological truths are kept in mind, then I can’t take your theological statements seriously. As Catholics we should trust the Church, not disparage it and say we’re more Catholic than the pope.
 
Debating the veracity or otherwise of some aspect of evolutionary theory is not necessarily relevent to the thread.
 
Last edited:
If you choose fallible science over the infallible Scriptures, you are falling into the “evoluion” trap
Just as science is not always immediately understandable by all of us, so too it is with Scripture. While few would claim an infallible understanding of Science, it seems that others willingly claim an infallible understanding of Scripture. Most Catholics look to the Church for guidance, believing that is a large part of why it was established.
 
Last edited:
Well I choose the Lord and scripture. I hardly know a lot about evolution and it puzzles me how we came from monkeys. I wanted to see what facts this thread would produce in hopes of finding out how evolution is wrong or not. I am still unsure about evolution and it’s authenticity, seeing that there is a debate where one side says Catholicsm is compatible with evolution and the other side saying it isn’t.
Good choice.

We don’t come from monkeys. But, our individual physical being does start in the form of one cell, which multiplies and gradually grows sufficiently to survive outside the womb and continues from infancy to childhood, to adolescence, adulthood and old age. This all happens because we incorporate matter outside of ourselves. Although there’s plenty more data available now, there’s nothing more of substance known today about who we are than there was at our beginning. We’ve always known ourselves to be made of matter and physically similar to mammals. It seems to me that we are created individually as we were as one humanity. God began to mould our physical structure from the very beginning. Animals are male and female, not because it is adventageous for survival, but because it is not good for us to be alone -'we are designed for love, to give of ourselves and thereby unite to what is other. Genesis provides the basics and science should seek to clarify the details, but it’s gone astray as a result Its assumptions about the true nature of existence.

I have accepted that my understandings can only be partially correct. Our perceptions are ordered in accordance with our expectations. We generally see the world as we believe it to exist; above we conceive there to be a blue dome or more recently perhaps Hubble images. Our beliefs are the link between ourselves and reality. These beliefs are inculcated within us by society and developed through there contemplation. They are solidified through our contact with the world about us. Sometimes they spring anew when our foundations are shaken and we are confronted with eternity. We don’t like to fall into the abyss and many of us close ourselves up, lock our souls in a golden cage of pseudo rationality, feeling superficially safe but no longer able to soar. We then can no longer see all things as they are in themselves, but only through the narrow cracks of this cavern, which seems brilliant but only reflects ourselves.

There is some truth within the current hodgepodge of ideas that together form the scientific view of evolution. I believe they will eventually approach the truth. That truth is to be found in the teachings of the Catholic Church, which can be understood by people in all times and of all cultures, and are far broader in their scope as they are presented in the Bible and expanded upon within a tradition that includes the Catechism. In the end, it all boils down to our relationship with God and our being loving persons. If one’s beliefs assist us to that end, they are valid; if not, run!!
 
Well I choose the Lord and scripture.
Bravo! A very wise decision.
[qoute]I hardly know a lot about evolution and it puzzles me how we came from monkeys.
[/quote]
The theory of evolution doesn’t teach that we evolved from monkeys - rather, humans and apes share a common ancestor. But for the sake of this thrad, this is splitting hairs. Acccording to evolution, humans evolved from some ape-like creature - a hominid.
But we didn’t come from these mythical creatures or anything like them. The Lord created our first parents, Adam and Eve - that’s where we came from. Don’t let anyone tell you anything different.

If you reject evolution you are missing out on exactly nothing, as the theory that all life shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science and accepting it is not required for salvation. But you will be be persecuted to some degree for not comforming to Satan’s lie.
 
Last edited:
I believe that life on earth was created about 5887 years ago, over a period of two days. As for the age of the earth and the universe, I don’t believe Scripture indicates how old they are.
 
Last edited:
If you honestly believe Christ’s Church is being prevailed against by the gates of Hell, contrary to Christ’s promise, by saying evolution does not contradict Truth so long as the necessary theological truths are kept in mind, then I can’t take your theological statements seriously. As Catholics we should trust the Church, not disparage it and say we’re more Catholic than the pope.
It seems you have misunderstood Chirst’s words - they don’t mean individual Catholics won’t be seduced by false teachings - they mean the forces of evil will never destroy the Church.
Ever heard of the Arian heresy of the fourth century? Apparently, 90% of Catholic bishops subscribed to this error - 90%!! Evolution may be another heresy of similar proportions.

Should I conform to this error because lots of Catholics leaders do? I don’t think so. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.

And you seem to have overlooked the fact that Catholics are free to reject the theory of evolution in its entirety and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis instead.

It is my belief that when the Church eventually wakes up to this evil, she will infallibly declare that the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis 1 are literally six days of 24 hours duration each. Can’t wait for that fine day.
 
Last edited:
I believe that life on earth was created about 5887 years ago, over a period of two days. As for the age of the earth and the universe, I don’t believe Scripture indicates how old they are.
I see. So on the age of the earth matter, have we made an error in interpreting evidence suggesting life has existed longer, or was that evidence created (by God?) to deceive us?

On the matter of the age of the universe, can we judge this by any means or evidence other than Scripture?
 
Just as science is not always immediately understandable by all of us, so too it is with Scripture. While few would claim an infallible understanding of Science, it seems that others willingly claim an infallible understanding of Scripture. Most Catholics look to the Church for guidance, believing that is a large part of why it was established.
The Church is infallible in certain areas but fallible in others. Since the Church made a mistake regarding the relationship between science and Scripture with Galileo, she can make a similar mistake with evolution.
 
The Church is infallible in certain areas but fallible in others. Since the Church made a mistake regarding the relationship between science and Scripture with Galileo, she can make a similar mistake with evolution.
So this is the basis on which you feel free to prefer your scriptural interpretations over the Church’s? It may be better for the Church to omit entirely interpreting Scriptures, or at least to check them with you first?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top