Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three


And how does Creationism help us in a way evolution doesn’t? You’ve kept asking that question of evolution so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

As others have explained, evolution gives is reasons as to why species have similarities.


If you had to weigh the two theories side by side, creationism would far outweigh evolution for uselessness to scientists. It explains far less, and makes a lot less sense and creates more questions.

Creationism takes the cake on uselessness.


Observation need not involve evolution. Evolution, in this context, is only a word. The scientist(s) who make a discovery about something that was already there get the credit. Evolution did not help the him/them.


Well, some here are only concerned about science. Full stop. Nothing more can be said. Science is limited but some view it as the way - the only source of knowledge and truth. Others realize, for themselves at least, that science is not the whole story.


Again. How is Creationism useful? You didn’t like my answer but I answered. Please answer my question.


No, I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What they are saying is that some questions should be answered without reference to the bible. For example, deciding if someone is out or safe at home plate in baseball. For that you consult the rules of baseball, not the bible. People who say that aren’t saying that the baseball rule book is the only source of knowledge. It is just the only source of knowledge about certain questions.

But as for the question that you have been avoiding, one specific criticism of evolution that has been voiced here many times is that it is useless. Therefore it is only fitting that you directly address the analogous question for creationism. And if your answer it that it provides the proper relationship between God and man, I will dispense with that answer right now. The proper relationship between God and man can be established without believing in the exact details of creation in Genesis, so creationism is not useful for that.


What do you mean by creationism? I’m referring to Divine revelation. For those who don’t accept Divine revelation as actual knowledge, the following won’t matter. I do hope some reading will consider it, since it is one of the major stumbling blocks. First, Adam and Eve are the first parents of all humans alive today. They had gifts given to them by God, including bodily immortality, and one prohibition given to them by God. By freely breaking this one command, two things happened: sin and death entered the world and they did die. Further, all of us have Original Sin. That is the reason Jesus Christ was born, true God and true man. His sacrifice allowed us a way to enter into a relationship with Him, freely. He rose again, bodily.

Now what that has to do with molecular switches in cells and so on, biologists are still trying to figure that out. Good for them. But there’s a missing piece to the puzzle. That’s all I’m saying.


I think he is referring to those aspects of creationism that are claimed to be in conflict with even the simplest and weakest form of evolution. That creationism. What use is it?


Leaf has it right. By Creationism I refer to literal 6-day. The fact I’m Catholic should leave an implied understanding I recognize the truths that are doctrine.


From the Catholic Encyclopedia: Creationism:

“The doctrine that the various species of living beings were immediately and directly created or produced by God, and are not therefore the product of an evolutionary process. It is thus opposed to Transformism.”


“The doctrine of gradual transformation of one species into another by descent with modification through many generations.”

So, God made the species in one form forever, never to change or mutate or adapt.

This is Creationism, and has zero usefulness for Catholic scientists, or (fill in the blank) scientists.


“Has been shown to be zero.”

Never happened. You keep saying it, but never demonstrating it.

Utility is dependent on goals: if something serves a goal, it is useful. If it does not serve a goal, it is not useful. Obviously, the idea of evolution serves the goals of many people, including almost all scientists, or they wouldn’t be bothered with it.

A goal it doesn’t serve is sticking your head in the sand and pretending that allegories are literal truths. That takes a special kind of determination that not many people these days can muster. Congratulations!


It should strike the thinking man as mighty strange that one of the greatest “discoveries” in science is completely useless. The thinking man will also remind himself that false scientific theories are completely useless.

Great discoveries in science - authentic ones, that is to say - tend to prove useful to mankind. Microbe-man evolution offers nothing at all.

In science, yes there is … it’s called applied science. Accepting the theory of microbe-man evolution is not required to be a competent in applied biologist.

That’s depends on what you mean by “how the animals on Galapagos became the way they are.” If you mean genetics variations within a species and natural selection, these are facts that are useful to science. On the other hand, if you mean common ancestry, this is not a fact, but a theory that is completely useless to science. Note that said useful facts exist whether or not one accepts said theory of common ancestry - the former is not in the least dependent on the latter.

Why is it that evolutionists seem to have the utmost difficulty telling the difference between “explaining the data” and a practical use? Is their aptitude for science really that poor?

Coming up with a theory that explains the data is actually useless to science - unless it leads to new knowledge (facts) that, in turn, can be put to some practical use. Furthermore, a theory that appears to explain the data can still be wrong.

“That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true … it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [of how evolution occurs – ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements.” - Determinism and Finality, Louis Bouroune ( Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum), edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79


I don’t need any authority to condemn parts of the Catechism - the Catechism condemns itself with its own words. All one has to do is read it.

My complaint is not the Catechism allows for evolution, but that, firstly, it implies microbe-man evolution is a fact. Paragraph 283 implies that the theory of evolution is “knowledge” and a “discover(y)”, meaning that science has established it as a fact. This is simply not true: Microbe-man evolution is an untestable (not to mention, completely useless) theory, so it in no way qualifies as knowledge or a discovery.
To make matters worse, the same paragraph implies that the “knowledge” of evolution can be compared to infallible knowledge handed down from God. What? An untestable scientific theory is as sure and certain as if God Almighty Himself declared it? That is absurd. (I wonder which Freemason wrote this stuff.)

So how did this patently false nonsense manage to get enshrined in the Catechism, an official Church document? I can only conclude that it did so because the Church is officially corrupt when it comes to evolution.

(Lest anyone doubts if #283 refers to microbe-man evolution, the words “origins … of man” and “the development of life-forms and the appearance of man” make it perfectly obvious.)

Secondly, the Catechism places a lot on emphasis on reading Genesis “symbolically” (in order to accommodate evolution, of course); and as far as I know, it nowhere points out that the faithful can believe in a literal interpretation - an interpretation that was the norm for nearly two thousand years.
I suspect that the author considered a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis to be so ignorant, backward and out-of-date, that it wasn’t worth mentioning. So my opinion is, the Catechism is very biased (towards evolution) and misleading with respect to how Catholics can read the Bible’s account of creation.


Back to the recent topic, is Creationism useful? And if so, for what? How does it “further Biology”

On what grounds do you say it is “completely useless to science”? Scientists using the theory to do their research would beg to differ. Did you read any of the peer reviewed journals I referred to earlier?

Oh yes Glark, because we all know the practice of explaining things is of no practical use to anyone. Go on.

Opinion, back up your assertion with an argument or facts.

Very good, but you have to prove it is wrong with data.

Look up your quotes before you quote them because Louis Bounoure never served as “Director” nor was even a member of the CNRS. So how can we trust a liar, someone who says he was a director but wasn’t?


You seem to have a short memory. About ten days ago I stated that my literal “six days” interpretation of Scripture could be wrong.


Good for you, you’re coming around. Our Church would echo that stance on the literal six days.


Okay, but that’s not my argument. I’m suggesting a form of paganism may have produced the theory of evolution.


Martin Luther didn’t need any authority to nail up his theses.


That’s fine, where are the facts that back up your theory?


Someone who completely rejects microbe-man evolution can theoretically gain a degree (or higher) in biology and become a perfectly competent biologist. This is because applied biology relies on facts, not useless stories about what happened millions of years ago. In fact, there are numerous “six day” creationists who are extremely highly-qualified in the field of biological science.

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