Evolution conflict and division

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
"Virtually certain" sounds as though the Commission is pretty sure. Did you miss that?

No. The preamble still applies. The subject remains the neo-Darwinists who are virtually certain; not the church. Do you need some remedial reading help?

Mercy Shown · Jan 21, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
Not according to what you previously said:

“Theologically the earth was made by God in 7 days but scientifically it took billions of years.”

My Bad. I was meaning what was recorded in Genesis. I can critique a 7 day creation also. My point remains that theistic evolution does not fit with the bible. The logical conclusion is that in order to be coherent one must either believe the bibles narrative or chop it up and reinterpret it. I am not placing a moral value on either in this thread.

Job 33:6 said:
That claim goes beyond what the text itself states. As others have noted, the same issue applies to the creation of life: Scripture does not describe material mechanisms or timeframes, only the ordering and emergence of life within an already-present world.

Theistic evolution not only goes way beyond the text itself but actually contradicts it. You insist upon isolating Genesis whereas I am positing that it contradicts the whole bible narrative. You go beyond the text to make your points throughout the entire narrative of death by spiritualizing that which is not spiritualized by the text. Death us cessation of life and includes all forms. Adam seceded from God's life and was dead that day. He was cut off from life and death began it's rain.

Paul teaches that death introduced through Adam includes physical death, not just spiritual death. In Romans 5:12–14. He says that sin entered the world through one man and that death spread to all humanity. Paul states that “death reigned from Adam to Moses,” even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did. This point only makes sense if death is literal and bodily, since all people in that period—including infants and those without a revealed law—still physically died. A purely spiritual interpretation cannot explain Paul’s insistence on death’s universal and unavoidable reign.

Also, Paul’s Adam–Christ parallel requires physical death. Adam brings death; Christ brings resurrection life (Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Since resurrection is bodily, the death overcome by Christ must also be bodily. While Paul clearly affirms spiritual death in other places—alienation from God and enslavement to sin—Romans 5 presents death as a cosmic power affecting creation itself, culminating in mortality and decay. So, for Paul, spiritual death is real, but physical death is undeniably part of what “reigned from Adam,” forming the foundation for his doctrine of resurrection and redemption.

Job 33:6 said:
Genesis 1:24 states that the earth “brought forth” living creatures. As with the description of the earth earlier in the chapter, this language does not specify duration or material origins.

Yes, in a single day and "each according to their kind." Not only are you going beyond the text in your interpretation but you are destroying part of the narrative.

Job 33:6 said:
To say something is “brought forth” is not to say it was created ex nihilo. It describes emergence within an ordered system, not manufacture out of nothing. If a store clerk is asked to “bring forth” eggs, no one assumes the eggs were created out of thin air.

In a single day? Each according to its own kind? Come now, it is easier to just acknowledge that the narrative has to be highly edited to reach your conclusions.

Job 33:6 said:
This pattern is consistent throughout Genesis 1. Humanity is “made” in the image of God (Gen 1:26), which describes vocation and status, not material origin. Dry land “appears” when waters are gathered (Gen 1:9–10), presupposing the land’s existence. The heavenly lights are “made” to govern/rule functions over day and night (Gen 1:16–18), with emphasis on their role rather than their material coming-into-being.

You jettison "and God said" Expuning it from the text and selective gathering the shattered remains of the narrative to craft an entirely new narrative. The point that I am making is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is simpler to say that the bible got it wrong and we are more enlightened now. It was just a myth much like how the leopard got it's spots. Unfortunately that would just be the first domino toppling down because the bible arc is starts with a perfect creation, a fall and a redemption and restoration back to perfection once again.

Job 33:6 said:
Genesis consistently describes ordering, assignment, and function. Reading it as a concordant account of material origins, whether of the earth or of life, imports assumptions the text itself does not supply.

Look, who gives a mouse's tail about concordance. It is just a distraction from the obvious. Theistic evolution makes a hash out of the biblical narrative and produces the question, "When does the bible stop lying to us." Why must we struggle so hard to try to reconcile two polar opposite narratives of origin?

Job 33:6 said:
As an alternative interpretation, consider the language of forming a football team. I could say that in seven hours I “created” a team—by assigning roles and functions to people who already existed. I might say, “let the field bring forth my linebackers,” or “I made this person the quarterback,” without implying anyone was created out of nothing.

And yet even cosmic evolution can't get beyond that point. If we follow your example we have so altered the narrative of the bible as to render it useless. It is reduced to a book of fables. How can I trust such a book then telling be about resurrection or a virgin birth. These too must be myths or metaphors.

Job 33:6 said:
Genesis uses similar language. Naming, assigning roles, and bringing forth do not inherently describe ex nihilo creation. Rather, the text can coherently be read as God taking what already exists—like the formless earth—and ordering it into something more than it previously was.

Absolutely not. Unless, of course, you leave out certain words and phrases, ignore what God stated when He gave his law, restrict death to only spiritual. Reduce God to an experimenting scientist depending on pre-existing matter to hope a man would emerge from it all after billions of years. Again I will reiterate that the bible has now become a book of myths, fables and metaphors. Even the promise of eternal life may be a myth since God has never exhibited any ability to counter physical death other than in stories printed in a book that starts off with lies.

Job 33:6 said:
If I make a quarterback in my image, or maybe I make a painting in my image. Or maybe I could make a sculpture in my image. Or if I make someone to rule something, I'm going to make the zookeeper rule over the zoo.

There really isn’t any solid basis for claiming that bara always means an instantaneous, out-of-nothing act of creation, while asah means a slow, natural process using pre-existing material. In the Genesis creation account (1:1–2:3), both words are used in situations where God is clearly creating out of nothing, and both are also used when He is shaping or forming things from material He had already made. So the words themselves don’t carry that sharp distinction.

What actually determines the meaning is the context. And when you look at the context of Genesis—and really the broader biblical picture—it strongly points to both bara and asah describing immediate, supernatural acts. Whether God is creating something out of nothing or forming something from material He has just created, the emphasis is the same: God speaks, and it happens. The default assumption in Genesis 1 and 2 should be ex nihilo creation unless the text clearly signals otherwise, as it does in passages like Genesis 2:7 and 2:22.

Job 33:6 said:
I'm not necessarily saying that I am creating a zookeeper ex nihilo out of nothing to rule over the zoo. I would simply be saying that I'm going to take someone and I'm going to do something with them.

Sounds autocratic. Of course a reading of the creation account clearly claims "out of nothing." The bible is either wrong in this or right but not both.

I would like for you at some point to explain why you accept other supernatural events from the bible and church tradition that are provably impossible by scientific examination.

Mercy Shown · Jan 21, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
And here is a good lecture on the alternative that I just described in my last post:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

It is a good lecture but it still makes hash out of the bible's narrative.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
If God made the first living things with a genetic system capable of evolving into all sorts of different things, would that be offensive to you?

If God did not will such power to His creatures, would that be offensive to you? Did He reveal to us that He wills such powers to His creatures? No.
He revealed that He directly did something quite different: "God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds" (Gen 1:21).

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
Which of the four parts of Darwin's theory have been disproven?

The burden of proof remains with you. Which parts do you believe are proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Perhaps you might start by explaining how the Cambrian Explosion of life forms fits into the theory, or the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record can be hand-waived away as a problem.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

Job 33:6 said:
It seems like your parting from Thomistic thought here. Matter, as ordered by God and operating through many generations of secondary causes, can give rise to new forms over time.

No Thomistic position claims that an individual amoeba has the potency to become a human being. The potency in question resides in matter and in populations over time, operating through an ordered system of secondary causes under divine providence.

I'm still following Thomas.

You're correct. Thomas did not allow the amoeba the potential to be the parent of either human beings nor any other vegetative or sentient creatures.

I do not follow the logic of your last sentence. Matter individualizes creatures. Populations are not individualized but collectives of some sort. Perhaps you can rephrase.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

TGGIL said:
Why would evolutionists ever invent the concept of God?

The OP's question is in the Theistic Evolution forum, so it might be rephrased: "Why would theistic-evolutionists (TE's) reject God's revelation?"

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek "haíresis," meaning "choice" or "thing chosen". The TE's dissemble Genesis 1 choosing to ignore that which is not amenable to their theory. Picking and choosing in such a method does violence to Revelation attempting to assign a superior mind to the human intellect over and against the inspired minds of the authors of Genesis.

My tradition allows departing from a literal interpretation of Scripture. However, such departures in interpreting the Word of God must possess both very cogent reasoning and strong evidence. Do the TE's have both strong evidence and cogent reasoning? Is the TE's natural faith in a fallible scientific method superior to the those who have faith in the revealed truths of Scripture? Do the scientific practictioners all agree on the claims of the TE's? I think not.

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

That's a testable belief. Which of the four parts of Darwin's theory have been disproven? Which of them haven't been verified by subsequent evidence? I'd like to know what you think. Tell us about it.

o_mlly said:
The burden of proof remains with you.

You don't even know what the theory says, do you? Just checking.

o_mlly said:
Which parts do you believe are proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Each of them has since been verified by subsequent evidence. Because you have no idea what the theory says, you're at a disadvantage here. Why not find out, so you can discuss it credibly? If you don't want to learn what it is, ignore my request and I'll tell you what it is.

o_mlly said:
Perhaps you might start by explaining how the Cambrian Explosion of life forms fits into the theory,

This is another example of the way not knowing can trip one up. The "Cambrian Explosion" is not the beginning. Complex metazoans were already present millions of years before the Cambrian. Would you like me to show you? The "explosion" seems to be the evolution of exoskeletons. allowing a diverse number of species with different ways of life.

o_mlly said:
or the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record can be hand-waived away as a problem.

Let's see what an honest and informed YE creationist has to say about that:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Dr Kurt P. Wise has a B.A. from the University of Chicago,and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. He now serves as Associate Professor of Science and Director for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He is actively involvedin various creationist organizations in North America

Do you think Dr. Wise is "hand-waving?"

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

If God made the first living things with a genetic system capable of evolving into all sorts of different things, would that be offensive to you?

o_mlly said:
If God did not will such power to His creatures, would that be offensive to you?

I'm willing to let Him decide how creation should work. Wouldn't it be great if everyone was like that?

o_mlly said:
"God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of crawling living creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds" (Gen 1:21).

You are willing to admit that much. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 21, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
I read it a year ago. But I don't see how it is germane to this thread. I don't see any of us as being divided by this as Christians. None of this is salvific it is all about the incoherence of theistic evolution and NOT that theistic evolutionists or 7 day creationists or IDers cannot be good faithful followers of Christ. They certainly can.

Well then, if that's the case, you and I have nothing vastly important to argue about. Thanks for clarifying.

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. "

"Virtually certain" sounds as though the Commission is pretty sure. Did you miss that?

o_mlly said:
The preamble still applies. The subject remains the neo-Darwinists who are virtually certain; not the church.

That is the conclusion of the Commission, not a quote or an attribution of science generally.
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.

This is about the origin of life. Then the commission picks up a new subject, biological evolution.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

That is the conclusion of the commission. It's the Vatican's statement about evolution, not the origin of life. Keep in mind, it's not doctrine. The Church does not forbid Catholics from being YE creationists. But this from Pope Francis:

He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/francis-inaugurates-bust-of-benedict-emphasizes-unity-of-faith-science?redirectedfrom=cna

You can deny these statements of the Church as you like, without departing from the faith. That should be enough.

2PhiloVoid · Jan 21, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
Right. The bible is downstream from their thinking.

For some of us, the Bible being downstream is the existential, default position ....... and we have to decide whether to kick it to the curb and be atheists OR engage it, value it, and see that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior in it.

I agree that the Bible is downstream for "their" thinking, but this placement doesn't necessitate atheism. On the other hand, one doesn't have to be a Presuppositionalist and hold the Bible as both inerrant and in a 1st principle position in order to "believe."

Those of us who believe [and/or have 'faith'] do so not merely because the bible says such and such (although that helps), we believe because the Holy Spirit draws us to Christ and aids us in "belief" of the Gospel testimony and facts.

Mercy Shown said:
Only in one's mind.

No they're truly and fully compartmentalized and they are so for specific reasons. Only the truly anal Presuppositionalists find it impossible to do this.

Mercy Shown said:
Why do you take this personally? It is just a philosophic discussion about theistic evolution.

My comment about folks thinking that I Jerry-rigg a God in the Gaps approach wasn't specifically aimed at you. So, maybe don't take it personally? It was a general sort of statement. But I know, it's difficult to tell the full context when reading online.

Mercy Shown said:
Who determines if you have hit reality?

No one does. Reality is what bites us in the butt when we ignore it or mis-define it. Of course, it goes without saying that God, in His All-knowing being knows both Himself and His Creation. ................................... but I know neither all of Creation nor do I have a direct perception of God in His fullness. So, I play in the epistemic sandbox until I come across something substantial.

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

o_mlly said:
The OP's question is in the Theistic Evolution forum, so it might be rephrased: "Why would theistic-evolutionists (TE's) reject God's revelation?"

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek "haíresis," meaning "choice" or "thing chosen".

You aren't a heretic for rejecting the conclusions of the Church, so long as you don't oppose doctrine. Evolution is an accepted fact by the Church, but it is not doctrine that you are required to accept to be a Catholic.

Job 33:6 · Jan 21, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
My Bad. I was meaning what was recorded in Genesis. I can critique a 7 day creation also. My point remains that theistic evolution does not fit with the bible. The logical conclusion is that in order to be coherent one must either believe the bibles narrative or chop it up and reinterpret it. I am not placing a moral value on either in this thread.

Theistic evolution not only goes way beyond the text itself but actually contradicts it. You insist upon isolating Genesis whereas I am positing that it contradicts the whole bible narrative. You go beyond the text to make your points throughout the entire narrative of death by spiritualizing that which is not spiritualized by the text. Death us cessation of life and includes all forms. Adam seceded from God's life and was dead that day. He was cut off from life and death began it's rain.

Now you're leaving Genesis and going off on a discussion about theology again. Paul isn't exegeting the text.

If you're not starting with the text, then we won't be able to agree. Notice how I am referring the Bible when I speak. Your position involves more theological extrapolation, which is a secondary question to what the text is originally describing.

Mercy Shown said:
Paul teaches that death introduced through Adam includes physical death, not just spiritual death. In Romans 5:12–14. He says that sin entered the world through one man and that death spread to all humanity. Paul states that “death reigned from Adam to Moses,” even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did. This point only makes sense if death is literal and bodily, since all people in that period—including infants and those without a revealed law—still physically died. A purely spiritual interpretation cannot explain Paul’s insistence on death’s universal and unavoidable reign.

I've already responded to this, and you essentially ignored me. I'll just copy my prior comments:

You said "The bible says death entered through Adam's fall but theistic evolution says "no, no, that is speaking of spiritual death." Darn that Paul for forgetting to add that modifier."

The onus is still on you to demonstrate where the Biblical text parts from its historical context. Otherwise, death before the fall is the historical default. And again, theology doesn't replace original context. That requires an assumption that Paul was attempting to exegete Genesis.

Also, consider some other passages by Paul on the matter of sin and death:

Romans 6:4-5, 7-8 ESV
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

[7] For one who has died has been set free from sin. [8] Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Paul obviously isn't talking about physical death here, as if he were a zombie that came out of the grave.

Or this one:
Romans 7:4, 9 ESV
[4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Sin came alive and then I died? I mean, Paul, you're writing this letter, what do you mean "I died"?

Or even in Romans 5:
Romans 5:14 ESV
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Death reigned from Adam to Moses. What, so people stopped dying after Moses?

It's pretty obvious that Paul isn't speaking in a concordant way. Paul is addressing spiritual realities, not biological events.

So we have a lot of issues with extrapolating his theology back to Genesis as though he were exegeting on the question of death before the fall.

Mercy Shown said:
Also, Paul’s Adam–Christ parallel requires physical death. Adam brings death; Christ brings resurrection life (Rom 5:17; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Since resurrection is bodily, the death overcome by Christ must also be bodily.

This does not require that all physical death originated with Adam. The contrast concerns representative headship and the reign of death over humanity, not the biological history of all organisms. Paul himself speaks of death as something that “reigns,” something believers have already “died” to, and something that can be broken prior to resurrection. Resurrection answers human death under sin; it does not function as a claim about pre-human animal mortality. Reading that assumption into Paul goes beyond what his argument actually states.

Mercy Shown said:
Yes, in a single day and "each according to their kind." Not only are you going beyond the text in your interpretation but you are destroying part of the narrative.

In a single day? Each according to its own kind? Come now, it is easier to just acknowledge that the narrative has to be highly edited to reach your conclusions.

What does the length of a “day” matter if the text isn’t describing material origins? I can organize a pizza in a day, assign toppings, slice it, and plate it, but that doesn’t tell anyone how long the dough or ingredients existed before I began. Genesis 1 works the same way: it orders and assigns functions without specifying the prior existence or creation of the material.

Mercy Shown said:
It is simpler to say that the bible got it wrong and we are more enlightened now.

Mercy Shown said:
Look, who gives a mouse's tail about concordance. It is just a distraction from the obvious. Theistic evolution makes a hash out of the biblical narrative and produces the question, "When does the bible stop lying to us." Why must we struggle so hard to try to reconcile two polar opposite narratives of origin?

And yet even cosmic evolution can't get beyond that point. If we follow your example we have so altered the narrative of the bible as to render it useless. It is reduced to a book of fables. How can I trust such a book then telling be about resurrection or a virgin birth. These too must be myths or metaphors.

These aren’t textual or exegetical arguments, they’re personal assumptions about how God must communicate. No one ever reads Jesus’ parables and says, “This isn’t literal history; how can I trust it?” Truth can be conveyed without insisting on modern scientific description.

Mercy Shown said:
There really isn’t any solid basis for claiming that bara always means an instantaneous, out-of-nothing act of creation, while asah means a slow, natural process using pre-existing material. In the Genesis creation account (1:1–2:3), both words are used in situations where God is clearly creating out of nothing, and both are also used when He is shaping or forming things from material He had already made. So the words themselves don’t carry that sharp distinction.

Correct. Which is why it is meaningless to argue that animals being created in a day is contradictory to theistic evolution, because the creation may very well be functional or otherwise involving the use of animals that are already there beforehand.

Mercy Shown said:
What actually determines the meaning is the context. And when you look at the context of Genesis—and really the broader biblical picture—it strongly points to both bara and asah describing immediate, supernatural acts. Whether God is creating something out of nothing or forming something from material He has just created, the emphasis is the same: God speaks, and it happens. The default assumption in Genesis 1 and 2 should be ex nihilo creation unless the text clearly signals otherwise, as it does in passages like Genesis 2:7 and 2:22.

This is good up until the last sentence. The historical and cultural context of the Old Testament does not assume ex nihilo creation; there is no textual evidence for it anywhere in Israelite writings (or anywhere else in the broader ancient near east, in these times creation was functional or otherwise always included pre existing material). Yes, God speaks and things happen, but if the passage isn’t about material origins, what happens reflects ordering and purpose, not modern biological processes.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
I'm willing to let Him decide how creation should work. Wouldn't it be great if everyone was like that?

Good. You're making progress.

The Barbarian said:
You are willing to admit that much. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Admit? I am certain of revealed truths. Less so for those provisional claims of scientists. Aren't you?

Those who presume, like you, to know how God did it should learn to holster such hubris.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
You don't even know what the theory says, do you? Just checking.

Which one?

The "unguided" one? The "random selection" one? The atheist evolutionists have the advantage on you. They jettison any such claims ,e.g., Divine Providence, Divine Omniscience, Divine Omnipotence. You do the same, right?

The Barbarian said:
That is the conclusion of the Commission, not a quote or an attribution of science generally.
While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago.

This is about the origin of life. Then the commission picks up a new subject, biological evolution.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

That is the conclusion of the commission. It's the Vatican's statement about evolution, not the origin of life. Keep in mind, it's not doctrine. The Church does not forbid Catholics from being YE creationists. But this from Pope Francis:

He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. ...The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.
https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/francis-inaugurates-bust-of-benedict-emphasizes-unity-of-faith-science?redirectedfrom=cna
You can deny these statements of the Church as you like, without departing from the faith. That should be enough.

The denial is not from me. Why don't you just cite the text as it is instead of editing so as to deceive readers?

... In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2)

So you see, you're wrong.

(Note: edited to avoid pasting a "text wall".

The Barbarian said:
You aren't a heretic for rejecting the conclusions of the Church, so long as you don't oppose doctrine. Evolution is an accepted fact by the Church, but it is not doctrine that you are required to accept to be a Catholic.

The Church most certainly does not accept macroevolution as a fact. Neither do all scientists. Whatever gave you that mistaken belief?

River Jordan · Jan 21, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
Theistic evolution not only goes way beyond the text itself but actually contradicts it. You insist upon isolating Genesis whereas I am positing that it contradicts the whole bible narrative.

Your position is that if evolution is true then Christianity is false?

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

You don't even know what the theory says, do you? Just checking.

o_mlly said:
Which one?

I said Darwin's. Go back and read it carefully.
"Random selection", if applied to evolutionary theory, is an oxymoron. It is used in statistics to describe sampling where each member of a given population has the same chance of being selected. Again, not knowing about the subject is holding you back.

o_mlly said:
They jettison any such claims ,e.g., Divine Providence, Divine Omniscience, Divine Omnipotence.

If you had bothered to actually read Aquinas, you'd have learned something important about contingency and Divine Providence:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

o_mlly said:
Why don't you just cite the text as it is instead of editing so as to deceive readers?

I posted the entire passage. No point in you denying the fact. It's still there.

o_mlly said:
In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided.

Yep. So it's perfectly reasonable to accept that evolution may happen by chance, but still be subject to divine providence. You're starting to catch on. You aren't a heretic for rejecting the conclusions of the Church, so long as you don't oppose doctrine. Evolution is an accepted fact by the Church, but it is not doctrine that you are required to accept to be a Catholic.

o_mlly said:
The Church most certainly does not accept macroevolution as a fact.

Here, you've confused common descent...
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.
ibid
...which the Church says is "virtually certain", with macroevolution, which is an observed fact. Because you don't know anything about evolutionary theory, you don't know what "macroevolution" is.

Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Macroevolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Macroevolution in the largest biology dictionary online. Free learning resources for students covering all major areas of biology.

www.biologyonline.com

The Church does not deny macroevolution of new species, including humans. And this isn't new:
The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Even most YE creationists have backed off to the point of accepting the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just claim that it "isn't real evolution."

o_mlly said:
Neither do all scientists.

Last time I checked, about 0.3% of all scientists with PhDs in biology or a related field had doubts about Darwinian theory. Not 3%, 0.3%. Pretty overwhelming, isn't it? Would you like me to show you how I know? Oh, and a fair number of those doubters still accepted other theories of evolution.

o_mlly · Jan 21, 2026

The Barbarian said:
"Random selection", if applied to evolutionary theory, is an oxymoron.

Try "random mutation".

The Barbarian said:
The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

? In your own words, what do you think Aquinas is teaching in this excerpt? I ask because you clearly do not understand the points being made.

The Barbarian said:
So it's perfectly reasonable to accept that evolution may happen by chance, but still be subject to divine providence.

The excerpt does not mention "chance". Rather, the excerpt corrects the error of Darwinians claiming that life forms result from "unguided" forces. I can't help you if you do not improve your reading comprehension skills.

The Barbarian said:
...which the Church says is "virtually certain", with macroevolution, which is an observed fact.

Again, nope. Did you forget that all science claims are merely provisional? It seems so. You seem to be quite familiar with the Joseph Goebbels' method of propagandizing: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

The Barbarian said:
The Church does not deny the observed macroevolution of new species.

Of course not; the Church does not make technical judgements. However, your problem is first with the science then, as you claim to be a theist, with Sacred Revelation.

The Barbarian said:
Last time I checked, about 0.3% of all scientists with PhDs in biology or a related field had doubts about Darwinian theory.

So what? I suppose if I had also invested time, energy and money in acquiring a biology PhD, I'd be reticent to abandon evolution theories. Is that why you prattle on here? Do you know how many scientists fear the opprobrium of denying evolution? Ask Dennis Noble. Denis Noble: “I Think Neo-Darwinism Is Dead”

Your emotive pretensions and immaturity overwhelm your rationality on this topic. While I don't think you can or will go in peace, I can.

The Barbarian · Jan 21, 2026

o_mlly said:
Try "random mutation".

Some mutations are apparently irreducibly random. But that's not a problem for God, even if it discombobulates creationists.

o_mlly said:
In your own words, what do you think Aquinas is teaching in this excerpt?

God can use contingency or necessity to effect His will. You clearly do not understand the points being made.

o_mlly said:
The excerpt does not mention "chance".

Perhaps you don't know what "contingency" means:

contingency /kən-tĭn′jən-sē/

noun

An event that may occur but that is not likely or intended; a possibility.
A possibility that must be prepared for; a future emergency.
The condition of being dependent on chance; uncertainty.

The Church does not deny the observed macroevolution of new species. Your problem is first with the science then, as you claim to be a theist, with Sacred Revelation, as opposed to your reinterpretation of it.

o_mlly said:
The excerpt does not mention "chance". Rather, the excerpt corrects the error of Darwinians claiming that life forms result from "unguided" forces.

That wasn't Darwin's theory. Nor is it modern evolutionary theory...
Chance is, nevertheless, an integral part of the evolutionary process. The mutations that yield the hereditary variations available to natural selection arise at random. Mutations are random or chance events because (i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the meaning of “random” that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.
Francisco J. Ayala, “Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104 (May 15, 2007): 8567-8573.

As you seem to now realize, God can guide things by chance as well as by necessity. If someone equates "unguided" with "chance" then that's a theological error.

Common descent, which the Church says is "virtually certain", with macroevolution, which is an observed fact.

o_mlly said:
Again, nope. Did you forget that all science claims are merely provisional?

Theories are provisional. Facts like observed macroevolution are merely facts. You're confusing theories with observations, now.

o_mlly said:
You seem to be quite familiar with the Joseph Goebbels' method of propagandizing:

Ah, Godwin, again.. Try to do better. Stuff like that might feel good at the time, but then later...
The Church does not deny the observed macroevolution of new species.

o_mlly said:
Of course not; the Church does not make technical judgements.

It acknowledges that the evolution of human bodies is consistent with Christian belief.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis

Your problem is first with the science then, as you claim to be a theist, with Sacred Revelation.

Last time I checked, about 0.3% of all scientists with PhDs in biology or a related field had doubts about Darwinian theory.

o_mlly said:
So what?

Regarding this:

o_mlly said:
The Church most certainly does not accept macroevolution as a fact. Neither do all scientists.

So you've just learned that the bandwagon argument is a huge loser for creationists.

o_mlly said:
I suppose if I had also invested time, energy and money in acquiring a biology PhD, I'd be reticent to abandon evolution theories.

It's not like creationism. The big rewards in science go to the guys who overturn conventional wisdom.

o_mlly said:
Do you know how many scientists fear the opprobrium of denying evolution?

And yet, guys like Michael Denton have tenure and keep their jobs. I took my first graduate course in immunology from a very kind gentleman who was a YE creationist. He was a tenured professor at a large state university. So I find those stories laughable.

Try to work on developing a cogent argument, and let go of name-calling, academic conspiracy stories, and Nazi tags, um?

o_mlly said:
Your emotive pretensions and immaturity overwhelm your rationality on this topic.

Or not. Have a good day.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Evolution conflict and division

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Revelation 13! Otherwise known as b.a.u.

Crabby Old White Guy

Revelation 13! Otherwise known as b.a.u.

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Crabby Old White Guy

noun​

Similar threads

noun