Does Darwin's theory of evolution contradict Catholicsm?


Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation,

2 Peter 3:15

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,

Exodus 34:6


I don’t know about “human concepts” per se – time exists, but definitely human limitations.

Yay hairsplitting!


A couple of words caught my attention - inanimate matter.

Matter’s got a bad rep.

A big part of that is because it represents death; so there’s a nothingness quality to it. We are made up of matter, and when we die we decompose to those components that were subsumed by our spirit. When we die, our bodies don’t suddenly become inanimate, since individual cells continue to be what they are, for a while at least. That’s how we are able to do transplants. We can also grow cells in a Petrie dish.

When we think of matter, we tend to visualize it, not so much think of what it sounds, feels, smells and tastes like. When we see things, we understand them as being out there in the visual world. Matter as an idea, an intellectualization of what things are made of, can result in our feeling detached from its reality, although this is pretty much all matter within the spirit-body-in the -world unity that we are as ourselves (ultimately in relation to God, the eternal Ground of all being).

Inanimate matter would be that which is lacking a living soul. That said, each particle is something in itself as it is also participating in something greater, existing and relating to other forms of being in accordance with its nature. If we define matter as the building blocks of the universe, including those processes that hold it together and cause it to change, it is pretty spectacular. In terms of bigness we have supernovas, black holes and galxies, if we are not impressed by the size of the nearest building, the earth on which we dwell and the sun around which we spin. All witness to the glory of God, everywhere and in every time, bringing it into existence.

Bacteria, plants, animals and we ourselves are examples of animate matter. Our entire bodily structure and physiology has been incorporated from what was inanimate and external, now animated within ourselves. Consider the way these words appear on a monitor conveying meaning, the holiness of it all - a person peceives, thinks, feels, and acts, one with and within the cosmos.

We cannot come from animate matter, because it possesses its own soul. When we eat, we break down whatever may be living, denaturing the compounds into materials we can use to grow and survive. We are created following the entry of a sperm into an ovum, both animate creatures whose “souls” are surrendered in the emergence of a new life. A person who did not until then exist in time, will become his/herself through the incorporation of matter, following his/her dreams and choosing to be whom they will with what they have been given.

My interest in science goes beyond that which is useful. It is a testament to God’s glory. But, it is also a social institution and as such, it is all about politics, economics, fame and fortune, as well a glue that holds society together. Here today, consumerist, materialistic, secular society preaches its “gospel” of evolution through the media and the educational system. However, through one’s relationship with God, if we are inclined, it is possible to go beyond that.


The sperm and ovum are alive but do not possess souls. However, when they join, conception occurs. That is when a new human life begins. The idea of ‘evolution’ is that science is inadequate to give an answer about who human beings are. We are made by God. Our will and the will of God should be aligned as much as possible. Purely material explanations do not tell us that.


And the reproductive system of both the Male and Female would have to randomly mutant millons of times just get all the different species we have today. And their reproductive systems would have evolved at the exact same time for mating to be successful.


They move, have a structure and physiology. They exist as whole beings, known by God who is the Source of their existence.

This medium makes it difficult to communicate. The parentheses around the word soul, were meant to distinguish their “life force” from that of the embryo, who is fully human. Gametes clearly are not, as you point out.

Science should be able to provide us with some sense of how God created us.

It has given us insight into how He created the universe. In that case we are speaking only of the most basic processes.

When we get to life forms, we have to acknowledge that there is something more going on. Vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers or souls have been proposed. If science is to provide us with anything of meaning regarding life and what is humanity, it would seem necessary to incorporate into itself what has been relegated to metaphysics.

This happens in a backward fashion anyway when we read some scientists making the most bizarre philosophical statements. (As more than likely are my own to others.)


Anyway, I see no scientific value for “evolution.” Only a social engineering value. No one designed us. So God does not exist.


The vast majority of mutations are deleterious and lead to loss of function.


Right, they have no empirical proof, that is observable, repeatable, and predictable. Therefore, their proclamations move from science to philosophy and in this case the religion of Darwinism.


Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

So now billions is not enough.


But we have to look back along a timeline.


Worth spending some time on “convergent evolution”. We now see many instances of a certain features “evolving” many times in many unrelated animals.

Any gambler knows when the deck is stacked when he sees these kinds of patterns.


Darwinist Evolution is the nonsense that arises when we fail to understand the nature of life, reducing it to mere chemical interactions. The driving force however appears to be that by doing away with God, that world view doesn’t challenge modern society’s mores. Any random behaviour becomes good, if you get away with it, if you survive.

Acknowledging the existence of souls we are more apt to consider their origins. While they imply an intelligent cause, it need not be God. Shamanism and pantheism may be alternative belief systems, which might explain the reality of life. While better than materialism, they do not provide a fullness of truth, revealed in Christ to be Love.


Shamanism and pantheism cannot give us the fullness of truth. The same Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead is alive at this moment.


If something is a good idea repeatedly, multiple things are going to use it.


How does a random mutation know what’s a good idea or not ?


Yes … in the same way that the Bible doesn’t say anything about the Trinity.

The Catechism doesn’t use the word “evolution”, but it clearly refers to the concept in paragraph 283: “the origins … of man (that have) been the object of many scientific studies” and “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” are obviously references to Darwinian evolution.

The Catechism presents evolution as “knowledge” and not as a theory or a possibility, but as a fact. Not even the atheist-ridden scientific community declares microbe-man evolution to be a fact. So the Catechism isn’t even scientifically correct.

It gets worse. The rest of the paragraph is as laughably stupid as it is bizarre: First, it is suggested we thank God for giving scientists “the understanding and wisdom” for making “discoveries” such as evolution. Then - get this - these scientists are directly compared to Solomon, to whom God taught “unerring knowledge of what exists”. So their scientific “discoveries” about “the origins of the world and of man” - which are largely useless and untestable theories about what happened billions of years ago - are considered to be the equivalent of God’s “unerring knowledge” - certain and infallible, in other words. Wow, that’s … insane.

This looks suspiciously like an attempt to elevate these these scientific “discoveries” to the status of Catholic doctrine. Wow, that’s … disturbing.

There’s a bit more of this demented Scientism in Paragraph 284: “it is not only a matter of knowing when … when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin …” Notice the use of the word, “knowing” - once again, evolution is presented as something that is known, ie, a indisputable fact.

To claim that microbe-man evolution is a fact is to imply that the Church’s teaching that the faithful are free to believe in a literal six days of creation is WRONG.

What does it say about the spiritual health of the Church when such embarrassing and erroneous rubbish manages to get enshrined in the Catechism?

For some reason, Sister Lucy’s term, “diabolical disorientation” comes to mind.


Er, unfortunately, I’m not young; I’m “semi-retired”. I not planning on a career in the field of physics. My studies are just a very part-time hobby.


Your questions are like rocks hurled at my fragile, egg-shell mind.

Adam is described as “the son of God” in Luke 3:38. Theistic evolutionists claim Adam is the son of a soul-less human, but I don’t think this “God” character is a human of any kind. I think if Adam’s father was a soul-less human, the Bible would call him “Bert” or “Merv” or “Jack”, maybe - but not “God”.


I’m not surprised. If the Cardinal was the editor of the CCC in 1992 … well, say no more.

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