Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?


These verses signify that God exists outside the dimension of time.

I’m not a Young Earth Creationist. The first of the “six days” of creation begins in Gen 1:3 with “Let there be light”, which means “God created the heavens and the earth” (v.1) before the six days - at least, that’s my reading of it. So there is room in the Scriptures for an ancient earth.

If God took billions of years to “evolve” Adam, why did He then create Eve in an instant?

Theistic evolutions give lip-service to Scripture; they actually don’t care what the Bible says. Nevertheless, what does this mean? … “But from the beginning of creation, God created them (humans) male and female” - Mark 10:6. Evolution says humans weren’t “created” until billions of years after creation (the six days).


You’re too kind - Romans 1 attributes it to “ungodliness and unrighteousness”, and calls such minds, “vain … senseless … darkened”, and such people as “fools”.


Since God created the universe, he created its natural laws. What happens pursuant to those laws, such as the law of gravity, could be described in many ways, including “by necessity”, “by design”, etc.

This does not mean that, from man’s Perspective, there is no such thing as random events, or chance events. What appears as chance is often the outcome of events subject to laws far too complex to predict.


Naturalistic evolution says a human being is no more important than a mosquito. Therefore if a foetus becomes a nuisance, kill it just as you would kill a mosquito that has become a nuisance. There’s no difference.

It could well be the longest sentence ever written in the entire history of the entire universe. Well done.


If you dump a million bricks on a piece of land and come back in a billion years, the bricks may have arranged themselves into the form a twenty-room mansion. This is how materialistic science works. Nothingness is so wonderful and it capable of magical things.


“Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis … [paleontologists then] interpret fossil data according to it … The error in their method is obvious.” - Pierre-P. Grasse


YHWH does not explain the origin of life period. Some things are impossible for YHWH, like making a square triangle. Similarly it is impossible for YHWH to create the first living thing, since He Himself is already alive. Creating the second living thing is possible, but He cannot possibly create the first living thing, because He Himself is that first living thing, and He is not created.



Almost. You need two sorts of evidence: evidence of design and evidence of the designer/s.

Archaeologists have independent evidence of the existence of humans at the times they are studying: bones etc.

Thus far we do not have independent evidence for non-human designers: space aliens, Vishnu, Amaterasu and the various other proposals we have seen for non-human designers.



Are you saying all those Ancient Aliens shows are bunk :rofl:


And there are some who evangelize with as much effort as the best Christian evangelists. Science becomes God. This theory can be used to deny God exists at all. We are told we are nothing more than biological robots, which includes our minds. So this theory can change minds and hearts. Our fleshly hearts become hardened, and our fallen nature means, too often, that since God is not God, we are god. In our thoughts and in our actions. Our new teachers will and do encourage this. Your neighbor is just another biological robot. He or she may have some utility and temporary value to you but that’s it. Discard your parents once you are an adult. You have been given food and shelter and love, but what is love? For some, it’s just sex with every precaution against pregnancy. You are in control, no one else.


It contradicts Scripture. It’s a theory, your faith is not. Creation is a fact. Look honestly at the condition of our world and society today. Where do you see things progressing to a better state. Sadly today it isn’t spoken of as a theory. It’s an assumed fact. Check out Genesis is History. You can see on Netflix.


Smallpox has been eliminated. Deaths in childbirth have greatly reduced. Average life expectancy has greatly increased. Shall I continue? The bicycle has increased fitness and genetic diversity (your could travel further in a day to find a partner).



When science is regarded as the only source of real knowledge, other options are immediately off the table. Those alleged holy books were very, very primitive attempts at explaining the world, combined with myths and legends. :slight_smile: Why don’t you get that :wink:

No, we must continue to present the truth. Always.


We’ve got “modern” conveniences. We Will Be Like Gods. Wait… where have I heard that before?

Genesis 3:5

New International Version
"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

New Living Translation
"God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil."

English Standard Version
For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”


The moral degradation of the West continues, for some. Those who hold to Church teaching are protected by God and understand God. The West has been badly poisoned but look on the dark side. The millions who died in the 20th Century and the billions put at risk from nuclear destruction. During the Cold War, estimates for destroying the world ranged from 10 to 12 times over. Based on previous and current information, we are currently at the 4 times over level. After all, why spend all that money when destroying the world only needs to happen once, but you have to have a 4 times over capacity to make it a safe bet.

Instead, we should let the morally blind rule us, like the former Workers’ Paradise called the Soviet Union, or go back to Year Zero with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Yep, we stand on the doorstep of utopia if only certain people would get out of the way.


The catechism doesn’t say anything about evolution. But it does say, “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” This is wrong and it is not part of the catechism’s teaching on creation anyway. And it does say that 'Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work” '. This is wrong, insofar as it seems to mean that the six days are only symbols. Some people who read scripture from a literary standpoint think that because something in scripture has a symbolic meaning, it must only be a symbol and not what is or what was. Apart from this, the catechism’s teaching on creation is entirely orthodox.


The author of the following is Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2005, New York Times
Vienna - EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

“All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

He went on: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”


Note that in this quotation the word “finality” is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, “It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity.”

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason.” It adds: “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of “evolution” as used by mainstream biologists – that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission’s document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul’s 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that “the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.” Furthermore, according to the commission, “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist.”



Now here, the Cardinal makes it very clear that if any development occurred, it was 100% guided. Still leaving Adam and Eve, who was not born but literally made by God from Adam’s flesh, as special creations unlike any animals on earth. Creation and its obvious design is 100% rejected by science while the Church rejects mechanistic and materialistic evolution. In other words, while science can tell us certain things about the world, it cannot, by default, ignore God. So, Catholics are obligated to believe only God created. Period. Scientific claims are, at least for Catholics, subject to Divine Revelation regarding this topic. Parts of the Biology textbook that reveal facts regarding existing life cannot go back in time aside from showing us bones and other fossils. It can’t fully inform us and so the Biology textbook has nothing valid to say about human origins and give a complete explanation of who human beings are.

It is useless in creating the idea of “theistic evolution” because such a concept is none of its concern. By presenting 100% materialistic speculations, it veers further and further off course, leaving the “you are only biological robots” explanation to average people. This reduces mankind to a thing and does a complete disservice to the entire human race.

My friends, in order to live as complete human beings we must realize that only the Church has the true answer regarding life and human origins. Science does not. And its discoveries of late shows that it knows very, very little about what happened in ages past regarding the development of life or even how the human genome works. It desires a true Abolition of Man. A true - we are things - parts - and nothing will stand in their way. Dead/ aborted babies are provided to so-called research facilities. They are experimental parts only. No need to concern yourselves.

God forbid.


If any development occurred? I note the cardinal did not make any assertion that all life was created, as it is today, 5778 years ago.

As to the development that has occurred, it remains the case that man (ie science) observes mutations to be unguided. If/How God chooses those mutations (and the outcomes we attribute to natural selection), I have no idea but I doubt that that can ever be determined nor do I see how such could ever legitimately be incorporated into a scientific theory.

However, the proposal that all life first apppeared 5778 years ago could certainly appear in a scientific theory (a Nobel Prize winning theory) were there not a plethora of evidence suggesting otherwise.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit