Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


A wolf can mate with a Labrador and produce viable offspring, so I imagine they belong to the same species.


If the Church allows the faithful to believe in evolution, then she must allow Catholics to believe that Adam was formed from a pre-existing creature. Alternatively, a Catholic can reject evolution and believe that Adam was formed from inanimate matter. But I don’t believe Genesis 2:7 can be interpreted either way, but only in favour of the latter.


Which means what? That microbes can evolve into elephants and that apes can evolve into humans? I don’t think so.


A good Flabberologist is worth his weight in gold.


God may have created a perfect couple of canines, with a surplus of genetic material which would be progressively cleaved from the original template. Reproduced with such modifications, successive generations would see the emergence of the diversity that includes wolves, feral dogs, domesticated dogs, foxes, and coyotes. It’s sort of reverse evolution with little to no random chemical activity involved, and visions of doggy or vixen perfection as the selector.


Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Dogs don’t climb very well, so if a chicken was able to flap high enough to reach a low branch, it might be safe. Now just as you might be able to run slightly faster than some of your friends, or swim slightly faster. Or climb a little better, purely due to a genetic throw of the dice, then some chickens are slightly better at gaining a little more height than others.

So the dogs find it easier to catch and kill those who are not so genetically endowed with whatever gene, or combination of genes, that enables some of the chickens to reach lower branches.

So those that are killed do not have a genetic dispostion to flap high enough to escape being eaten and those that survive do.

All sound pretty reasonable so far?

And over time we find that as most of the surviving chooks have a genetic make-up that allows them to flap a certain distance into the air, those that breed have offspring that also enables them to do the same. Just like if your parents were good runners, then there is a reasonable chance that you will be a better than average runner.

And over time, because the chooks without the genetic make-up which allows a better chance of survival do not in fact survive, they are removed from the genetic pool.

Now is there anything at all that I have said so far that is unreasonable?


If the many atheists online forums I’ve participated in are any guide, most (if not all) atheists consider Christians to be superstitious fools - the ones who reject evolution are considered to be especially stupid and ignorant. At least Bradskil doesn’t use foul language, as is standard fare on atheist sites.


A ‘genetic throw of the dice’? So if there had been a real genetic throw of the dice, we could have all become lizard men, right?


That might work in comic books.


The early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church who didn’t’ believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis were the exception, not the rule.


Yet for hundreds of thousands of years they must have had the same intelligence as Adam.


The baby birds would be easily scooped up by the dogs.


Yes, I’ve been to those sites, and sites where those claiming to be scientists wonder how they can explain “science” to a group of people whose religion is full of it. Uh… pure nonsense. If the Church says anything that threatens the current secular dogma, the verbal torches and pitchforks come out, but if the Church says anything positive about the secular dogma, she is praised.

William F. Buckley — ‘Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.’

Science is not a god.


If evolution is true, it doesn’t have a mind of its own; it must be guided by God.


This is a very important point. Darwinian evolution describes how species evolved from prior species. It does not address the question of where the first life form came from at all. I believe evolution is true. But I choose to believe that the first life form was created miraculously by God, even though I cannot prove it scientifically.

First, they were not human - not in the theological sense - any more than mud is human, assuming God formed Adam from mud.

Secondly, why would you assume that any species that existed for a long time must necessarily have invented those things? Ants have existed for much longer and they haven’t invented any of those things either.

Perhaps they were taken from the biological parents and raised directly by God in Eden? By all accounts, Adam and Eve had a flawed sense of morality anyway.

They do, because scientists have decided arbitrarily to define “species” in terms of what can interbreed.

For it to be binding Catholic doctrine in the deposit of faith, it would have to be unanimously and explicitly agreed.

There is no evidence that Adam was all that smart.


That sums it up.


When it comes to freedom of speech, the Liberals are complete hypocrites. Incidentally, my online interactions with atheists indicates that 99.999% of them belong to the Loony Left. Their support for homosexuality, abortion and feminism (the unholy trinity) is rabid and matched only by their hatred of traditional Catholicism.


I was making the response to the idea that there was a consensus among the Church fathers.


Your inability to understand it is not grounds for its validity.

We are not obligated to interpret it in the literal sense, as there are other senses of scripture, which we as Catholics ascent to.

Yes there is mud, clay, but in which sense is to be taken as? Is it literal and dogmatically the only one interpretation? Please show me an authority which supports such a claim.

Mud is pre-existing matter, and is it literal mud or the same mud apes are made of? Or are the apes mud? Could we not take the clay to be those souless animals? What council or Catholic authority refutes that?


This does not exclude many souless pre-men and their existence. Adam and Eve were the first because they had souls. There could be many non-human humanoids running about at the same time.

Where do you suppose Adam and Eves son and daughters in law came from?


Oddly enough, it is the imperfections in living forms that is supportive of Darwinian evolution, for if all of creation was created directly and immediately by God, there would be no need for these imperfections. Keep that in mind when talking about perfection. It doesn’t exist in nature. Far from it. Living forms have lots of design imperfections.

One such design imperfection is the location of the testes in Man. They are currently located outside of the body core because lower temperature is more conducive to sperm production. But how did they get there? Examination of the physiology and embryology of Man shows that the testes start out inside the body core in every male fetus. Then at some point before birth, the testes descend to the normal exterior location in the scrotum. This passage of the testes leaves open a gap in the abdominal wall that makes men more subject to hernias. This is clearly not ideal. Why would God design Man with this flaw if He could just as easily designed Man with testes that started out in an external scrotum and avoided the weakness to hernias. However that is how random variation and natural selection would work, where each generation has to start with whatever was present in the previous generation and modify it slightly. There is no opportunity to “tear up the plans and start from scratch,” which is why we see so much imperfection.

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