Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three


"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. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."
The relevant portion being
"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."
Which is open as heck to interpretation. It essentially hand waives the whole debacle away as nonimportant.


Just curious, did you make this phrase up yourself or are you borrowing it from somewhere. It is very peculiar to say the least.


The earth itself wasn’t recreated - the creatures that inhabited the earth may have been destroyed and then replaced by second creation.

The omission of details doesn’t necessarily mean nothing happened. Something could have happened that we’re not told about. This is theological concept you should be familiar with - you know, billions of years of evolution and no mention of this momentous process in the Bible.


Well, that settles it then - a scientist (probably an atheist) says man’s creation is statistically impossible. Scientists are infallible - and as the Catechism implies, their “knowledge” of evolution is as good the “unerring (infallible) knowledge” that comes from God.


Totally a remote possibility, but do we have any clues of that happening other than conjecture? Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 don’t seem to be giving any clues.

  1. Probably not an atheist, but your guess is as good as mine
  2. Definitely fallible
  3. Unerring knowledge comes from God, yep
  4. You and me are fallible yet have the unerring knowledge of God, that Jesus is God for one, whoa, can it possibly be that we are fallible yet have infallible knowledge?


The thing is you attack evolution as denying scripture yet postulate something without Biblical backing. It’s not that lack of explicit Biblicalness that I find objectionable, but that you hold evolution as false and pagan as contradicting scripture when the idea you postulate would also do so. That contradiction in your arguments gives your thoughts a break in continuity.


I believe it can be demonstrated the Catechism is both technically incorrect and misleading when it comes to evolution. That being the case, I am perfectly entitled to criticise it.

That is not my position. For starters, the Bible has authority only because the Church gives it authority.
Next, I accept the authority of the Church - but only those parts that are authentic and have not been spiritually and intellectually corrupted.

Maybe it does. But can you point out where? And where does it say the faithful can believe in a literal “six days” interpretation of Genesis?


Fossils showing the transition from one major group to another (reptiles to birds, for example), are conspicuously non-existent. Gee, I wonder why that is?


You are likely getting hung up on the quote from Solomon including the word unerring, but the point is that their knowledge and wisdom comes from God.


But here’s the problem Glark, and I think a lot of us see it. You are setting yourself up as the judge of authenticity and corruption in the Church and in particular the Catechism, which seems 1. arrogant 2. heretical 3. unfounded 4. to betray a very low esteem of the Church.

Remember, it is only your interpretation of the Catechism, not the Catechism itself you have issue with.

You as a Catholic don’t have the privilege of deciding what is corrupt and what is not in the Catechism, you just don’t have that authority nor the Holy Spirit’s gifts. Like the Saints, you are to trust and obey even when your own personal opinion doesn’t conform to the Church’s opinion. It comes down to a binary reality. Either you have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on this matter or the Church does.

I would not be in a Church that conformed to Glark’s whim, and his private opinion. The Church simply cannot be corrupted as easily as you think it can, and is protected by such errors better than you imagine.

The Church is not corrupt, the Catechism is not corrupt. Her individual members in so far as they are separated from the vine and in rebellion against Her, may be a different story.


A sausage dog can theoretically breed with its ancestor, a wolf, and produce viable offspring - so they’re still dogs.


Animal and plant breeding by humans can be considered a massive global experiment that has been in progress for thousands of years. The results provide no evidence that one kind of animal can evolve into a completely different kind of animal (which is what the fossil record suggests, btw).


Darwin himself complained that the fossil record didn’t provide evidence of his theory’s prediction of innumerable transitionals.


My personal theory is that whales evolved from dogs, coz dogs like to swim … and once I saw a dog eat a prawn/shrimp. Also, my sister’s dogs bark at dolphins - I think they’re trying to communicate with their long lost relatives.

And didn’t Darwin say he could imagine sea-creatures evolving from a bear? What a mind!


If they evolved from dogs, there would be no more dogs left. That’s how it works.

Also that’s not a personal theory. That’s a personal hypothesis at best.

Also your hypothesis is wrong. Whale DNA is easy enough to sequence.


Forgive my ignorance, but, in that case, if all life evolved from microbes, how come microbes still exist?


Let me clarify, what do you mean by “dogs”? I took that to mean canis familiaris. If you just mean a dogs as a general term for all canines, then it’s certainly possible.

Except that DNA and morphology lead us to whales being ungulates, not canines.


… if you can trust an atheist pseudo-scientific cult to present the evidence truthfully and objectively. These same “scientists” claim that there is no evicence of design in nature and that inanimate matter can naturally produce life! For scientists, they sometimes do excellent impressions of irrational fools … who refuse to “follow the evidence wherever it leads” for fear that it might lead to a Creator God. They can’t be trusted.


In other words, start with the assumption that microbe-man evolution is a fact (since God and creation are childish fantasies); then find fossil creatures with similarities; then link them together and claim this is real evidence. Apparently, this is “science”.

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