Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. [B]Natural selection is totally blind [/B]to the future. “[B]Humans are fundamentally not exceptional [/B]because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what [B]it explains is the whole of life[/B], the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in [I]Biology [/I]by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)"

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, [B]we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design[/B].”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)[/QUOTE]"


God grant me the patience…

Okay, first of all, those are prime examples of what I was talking about, scientists being philosophers or theologians, which is beyond their domain. They are commenting on and coming to philosophical conclusions, which is beyond the scope of the data and the theory. That is why they are wrong.

Just because they teach philosophy posed as science, doesn’t mean science teaches philosophy.

Secondly, I did not assert the theory or science claims God was active at that time, because it certainly does not. It is not a scientific “fact”, it is a theological matter of faith, but if you look closely, you can see God in His creation.

Your quoting people commenting on or quoting other people commenting on evolution, does not prove evolution does any of those things they say it does. They are drawing their own philosophical conclusions from a philosophically neutral scientific theory.

If your railing against me, a fellow Catholic and brother in Christ is really just railing against atheists who have gone off the rails, then Lord have mercy. If atheists never hijacked the theory for their own ends, do you think you would be able to see the implications of the data and the theory in a clear headed and objective manner?

Your bias and prejudice against this rather interesting theory does no service to the many Catholics who dedicate their lives to science, and to finding ways of healing the disunity between science and faith.


I think you are confusing the claims of evolution, which @timothyvail put in quotes, with timothy’s personal opinion about “God must have been…”, which was not in quotes. Therefore it was not supposed to be taken as one of the claims of scientific evolution.

Tim: I’m beginning to think it is not worth it to feed the trolls.


Putting that another way, it understands that Scripture ought not be in conflict with knowledge and understanding. And no element of our salvation depends on how anyone thinks the bodies of Adam and Eve came about.


Decontaminated dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated


So you believe God had to use evolution to create the natural world we have today ?


65 million years ago… or 30 thousand years ago, they both can’t be right.


They will claim contamination and all sorts of problems. However, they now have to admit the soft tissue finding. Step by step, inch by inch…



Which shows that the poster of that video does not understand carbon dating.

If I have a set of kitchen scales which weigh up to 20 pounds max, and I stand on those scales they will register 20 pounds. What does that mean?

a) I weigh 20 pounds?

b) I have maxed out the scales and I weigh 20 pounds or more?

If you answered a) then I can let you have have the wonderful rossum weight loss plan with no exercise and no dieting, a steal for just $499.99 + p&p (scales included).

Your video did the same thing with those dino bones. Carbon dating is good to about 35,000 years bp, which is what your link said:

Dinosaur bones with modern carbon removed by acid pretreatment have been radiocarbon dated (Carbon-14) by professional laboratories to between 22,000 and 39,000 years before present.

Whatever else that shows, you have confirmed that a 6,000 year old earth is definitively falsified.



Uh no, it is now around 55,000 years. All specimens were under 40,000.


Didn’t have to. But He did.


The 30K determination is probably in error, since it is at odds with so much other evidence. Get enough 30K samples and you might change some minds. But one or two fluke readings are probably just a mistake.


What is your evidence for a 50,000 year old earth? We have rocks dated to over 3 billion years old from Greenland.



Where did I say that? I said RC dating is good to about 55,000 years BP.

How did they date those 3 billion year old rocks?


I believe they are referencing something that has been done many times, anonymously sending in parts of dinosaur fossils and having them dated, and they usually come up as fairly young. It’s not just a couple of times, either, but many.
I find it interesting. I believe the Kolbe institute (a Catholic creationist apostolate) has info on it.
It’s quite a queer thing, and would be something that requires explanation.
The world’s a strange place


Of course it has to be in error. We know it has to be in error. How? We just know it has to be. Just like evolution. We just know it has to be. Blind faith.


Yes, it sure does. Now the claim is that the soft tissue can last 65 million years. It has to be so.


No, by the scientific process. Examine the evidence, propose a theory, gather more evidence to test the theory, repeat. I said that if you found enough cases of “young dinosaurs” you would have a chance of changing the theory, and I meant it. Scientific theories must be falsifiable. I just haven’t seen the evidence, confirmed by multiple sources, that young dinosaurs exist. The bar is quite high to overturning established theory, but it is possible. You just want it to be too easy.


Darwinism can be. As a personal choice. However it denies intelligent design! And scripture! Therefore denying all that God has done.
Science and athiests prefer trying to prove God does not exist.
However. Psychologist say that it is impossible for mans simple mind to concoct a God without one being there in the first place!

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