Theistic Evolution and Man

People ask me all the time, do I believe in evolution, or the big bang theory. And I kinda sum it up with theistic evoution. Evolution that started with a big bang - all part of an extremely intelligent design.

And I was thinking about this - and what that would mean for Man. If evolution is the case, at what point, would man become MAN, and not an animal?

IOW, we believe that God created Man in His image - not a monkey that turned into God’s image? See where I’m stuck? Can I work this out or is my whole theistic evolution idea wrong because of this?

As a Lutheran, I’m comfortable with believing in “such and such simply IS.” So I’m not terribly driven to reconcile “man’s knowledge” with God’s Word. I follow scientific advances with interest, and also a sense of wonderment at how it will eventually be in agreement with the fact of an omnipotent Creator.

The common Catholic teaching is that what separates Man from the rest of the animal kingdom is that he has a rational soul.

Therefore, Man was created when God endowed the human species with a rational soul, and it’s possible that the human species has biological predecessors - but since they lacked a rational soul, they were not human beings like us.

And that flies with the catechism?

So it could be that…

God made a big bang…

which resulted in a series of events…

evolving into reality as we know it, the universe, planets, stars…eventually life on earth…animals, etc…

Then God took a monkey or whatever you wanna argue we evolved from and gave him a rational soul, therefore making it ‘in His image’ and from that point on…we were Men.


If that all makes sense then you could say that the ‘missing link’ is Adam…trip out. :slight_smile:

I would suggest this book.


Man became man at the point God created man in His image and breathed live into him. It also coincides with intellect and science. That is of course unless man through science as of most recent provided the data connecting us with green slim or the original simple life form. Let alone the missing link.

Evolution and the Big Bang doesn’t discount God created the Universe, much to the contrary. In fact the more we examine the intricate dymanics of the Universe the more its apparent the possibility of mere chance is zero. In other words the two coincide.

Science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor is it within the scientific scope

"God, for those of us who believe in Him, is the Creator and the Master of the universe. As C. S. Lewis once said, “[God] likes matter. He invented it.” [Mere Christianity, Harper, 2001] It seems to me that an all-powerful Creator, who is behind both the material of the universe and the laws that govern the interactions of that material, would be able to accomplish any goal He wanted to in terms of the process, the architecture, or the ultimate fruition of the universe.

Now, what I don’t find useful to speculate about are the exact physical, chemical, or biological processes that could be attributed to God, or identified as God working His magic in the world. I think both Western religious tradition and scripture itself tell us that God is very subtle and He can use many ways to accomplish His ends."

Kenneth R. Miller-Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is a professor of biology.

Science is the knowledge of a body of facts or principles gained by systematic study. On such questions as the purpose of mans existence in the Universe it remains silent.


You know, more or less, I agree with this. It’ll be neat to see how it all pans out when we’re with Him.

Not me…boring! :stuck_out_tongue:

While researching genealogy on my Dad’s side of the family, I came across an interesting article of the time detailling a squabble amongst the Reformed and Lutheran Germans about how to finance a local school. This quote made me laugh, and comes to mind all the time:

Too much learning makes for bad farmers.”

Boring is my very own heritage!

I’m not sure if I’m reading your post right (because you can’t really tell if it’s sarcastic - and I don’t understand what your quote is meant to imply) but I get the feeling it’s a dig, so if you thought I was calling you boring I apologize.

I forget how careful I have to be around here with my words. To clarify, I meant that, IMHO- to not think about things we don’t have answers to, even out of pure speculation or curiousity - is boring. I don’t like not having ideas. One might not be the most learnt farmer but at least have some conversation.

Oh my! No offense taken at all!. I was just laughing at myself in a self-deprecating way. I have been told all my life that I “think too much.” Sometimes things really just “are.” :stuck_out_tongue:

Well I’m glad because it was like I was trying to tip toe around a spider figuring out how to respond to your post :smiley:

Okay, so this is from the catechism:

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

Would I be going against the catechism with my idea?? Does the Church maintain that we have to take the ‘from dust’ part literally?

Can one have an intelligent design theory AND theistic? I don’t think they can be blended.

I’m in pretty good agreement with Equites Christi, catechism or not.

I don’t see why not…God is an intelligent designer… :shrug:

I find that theistic evolution is very weak Scripturally. Theistic evolution also cuts to the heart of the gospel itself. In order to function, macro-evolution absolutely requires death. Millions of years of it, in fact; the struggle for existence, dominance of one species over another, etc. all millions of years before man arrives onto the forefront of genetic superiority. In this type of environment, death is not the enemy that Scripture states that it is. It instead becomes the means by which God creates everything. However, the Bible makes it plain that the wages of sin is death. Death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Rom. 5). There was, therefore, no death prior to sin, and therefore there could be no evolution.

If death and evolution are what God used to create man, then death is not the last enemy (1 Cor. 15), nor is it the wages of sin, as Adam would have died regardless of whether he sinned or not. If this is the case, then what becomes of Jesus Christ, whose very purpose in coming was to pay the penalty for sin and break the curse of death forever?

The Bible tells us that God cares for his creation. A sparrow doesn’t fall to the ground apart from the will of the Father, and yet, although our omnipotent God could call things to exist, instead he chose to use a death-driven process, a struggle for existence where the weak perish and the strong survive? This doesn’t make any sense. It is inconsistent with God’s character, His holiness and His love.

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