Then why does science continue to teach otherwise?
And why is Catholicism (my background) open to macroevolution?
Science cannot offer a logical reasoning for why we and the universe exist. Without God, without a Creator, nothing would exist and there is no way to explain the world from a materialistic point of view (materialistic means nothing transcendental exists).
But humans want answers, they want to know where we come from and why we exist. Science is in a way "forced" to offer answers, and because
God is not a "scientific answer" they resort to some just-so stories which are absurd and illogical but make people feel good about not having to deal with God. The devil is a real power, and he achieved a lot by spreading the theory of "evolution" and making people believe it.
Let me quote Professor Richard Lewontin again whose words explain quite well
why scientists proclaim the Big-Bang theory and Evolution although they know exactly that it's not the truth.
Lewinton is a leading evolutionary geneticist and claimed to speak for many when he confessed: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the
patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Dr Colin Patterson, the British Museum’s senior palaeontologist, said: „Nine-tenth of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum there is not a partical of evidence for the transmutation of species." Speaking in New York City, at the American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, Patterson said:
„Last year I had a sudden realization that for over 20 years I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long… so for the last few weeks I’ve been putting a simple question to various people… Can you tell me anything you know about evolution… any one thing that is true? I tried the question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: „I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.""
Whole groups of evolutionists could not tell a single thing about evolution that is true. Scientists
know that their theory is utter nonsense, but they don't have a better answer for people asking about the world's origin that doesn't include God. So they keep telling the fairy tale of evolution.
Steven J. Gould, late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, and President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record „persists as the trade secret of palaeontology“. Niles Eldredge agrees, claiming a deception has been taking place: „
We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change]… all the while knowing that it does not".
Do Gould and Eldredge believe in a Creator because of it though? No! They don't
want a God. So instead their response to the problem was to suggest that evolution developed by sudden and massive jumps from one species to the other, rather than by gradual change. Which is even absurder than the original theory.
Is it silly to believe in a God as a scientist? Absolutely not. Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and many many other famous scientists knew
exactly that the universe had been created by God, simply based on their scientific observations.
Heisenberg wrote: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you".
And Max Planck wrote: "Not the visible, short-lived matter is the real, actual, true - because matter wouldn't exist without the mind - but the invisible, eternal spirit is the real! Therefore I do not hesitate to call this mysterious creator the same as all cultures of the world called him for millenniums:
God."
Today even so-called Christians don't trust God anymore and refuse to believe His word. As a result these "Christians" value the ignorance of scientists higher than the Bible. If Catholics teach macroevolution then they'll have a rude awakening when Jesus returns. Because Jesus will return as the
Creator of the universe (Revelation 14:7).