jump to navigation

44 detailed criticisms of the theology of evolution October 31, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, secularism, self-serving, Society.

Before I post the link and some parts of the list of criticisms someone has created (I’ve never seen this blog before), I will say that while I almost totally disdain theories regarding evolution and the big bang at this point, I don’t take what you might call a dogmatic stand against them. We’ve all been more or less propagandized from our earliest years to accept these unproven theories as hard, irrefutable scientific fact.  Among the scientific community, the modern priest caste in our society, rejection of evolution is seen as a heresy against the new religion of rationalist sexular paganism.  So I don’t wig out if I encounter faithful souls who believe evolution is real.

What I do try to get people to understand is that there have been powerful motivations in the scientific community towards treating science as the new religion of our culture.  As I alluded to yesterday, this was more or less openly claimed by Rene Descartes as his objective, and undermining traditional accounts of Creation was certainly one of Darwin’s main goals.  Thus, I hope those who have been stewed in the cultural religious catechesis in favor of evolution – as we all have – will keep an open mind in reading the below.  We see how those who support traditional accounts of Creationism get treated as backward loons. That treatment is not incidental, it is part and parcel of the competing religious ethos of scientific rationalism.  Again, Edward Feser’s  book The Last Superstition is a must read to understand the basic incompatibility of modern “sciencism” with scholasticism and the whole ethos of Christendom.  This is not to say all science is false or that science is a field to be avoided by faithful souls: it merely means that we must be aware of the powerful biases and inbuilt conceits that the treatment of science essentially as a religion entails.  And those conceits are centered in the fields of evolutionary biology and astrophysics.

Anyway, the full list of criticisms is here, and some of them are quite powerful. I am out of time but here are a select few below:

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.  But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants –instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.” [And we see here the profound tendency among modern scienticians to completely disregard any historical evidence or supernatural explanations of Creation, or to even see their failure to find such fossils as an indication of potential falsity in their theory cum dogma.  In fact, they deliberately reject any evidence of supernatural Creation, just as Descartes intended.]

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.  In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.  The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

————End Quote————-

Again, there is much more at the link. I do not recommend the site aside from this one link.

This is for your consideration.  Do with it what you will.  But I would remind that rejection or undermining of the Biblical story of Creation, especially regarding Adam and Eve, has a profound tendency to undermine all manner of doctrine.  It is rejection of the biblical account of Creation that to my mind has led to theories of universal salvation, because if there was no Adam and Eve, there was no Original Sin, and we have no need for a Redeemer.  The effects of evolution on the Faith are extremely toxic……..just as they were designed to be.


1. LaGallina - October 31, 2014

Much appreciated! I was shocked to discover that my father was definitely NOT taught evolution when he was growing up in Catholic school in the 40’s and 50’s. The education I’ve gotten on this blog has been enormously helpful.

But in the Catholic world today, I never once heard anyone mention Creation or Intelligent Design until I discovered Traditional Catholicism. The Novus Ordo crowd is so excited that they can “fit in” with the rest of the culture when it comes to matters of evolution nowadays, that they have embraced it whole-heartedly. I even got laughed at a few years ago in Mark Shea’s comment box for even questioning the idea that I came from a monkey.

A boy at my son’s high school expressed his disappointment in the pope’s statements. The boy was from a non-Catholic, moderately religious home. He said, “Isn’t the pope supposed to defend Creation?” He seemed disappointedly by the pope’s lack of leadership on a confusing topic.

What kind of a disasterous affects are the pope’s comments going to have upon the young?

2. henry1941 - October 31, 2014

All 24 points can be demolished. But why is this even an issue? Evolution is about the physical evolution of man. It tells us nothing about how man became a spiritual being, which is surely the important point about the bible account of creation.

c matt - November 3, 2014

So what about the other 20 (the article says 44)?

3. Observer - November 1, 2014

First off, I earn my living in a scientific discipline so I’m naturally somewhat biased to regard evolution as a useful description of the way many things, not just in the biological world, develop through time.
All theories are provisional in so far as they conditional not on being ‘proved’ but on the contrary, on being ‘disproved’. Evolution and some cosmological theories are ‘weak’ theories because they lack a direct way of experimental or observational disproof. However, for the time being they are the best we have.

4. J. - November 2, 2014

To get a fish count in a lake, you tag some fish and see how often you catch them again. The more often you see them again, the smaller the population in the lake. Basic statistics. The same kind of analysis shows that the fossil record we have is mostly complete. We are not finding transitional on account of the fact that they do not exist. We keep finding fossils of species we’ve already seen.

5. This Week’s Best in Catholic Apologetics | DavidLGray.INFO - November 2, 2014

[…] – Denise Bossert Why Was Luther Wrong Part 5 – The Papacy – Scott Windsor 44 Detailed Criticism of the Theology of Evolution – Lawrencinium T.R. Jones Is There A New Covenant Ministerial Priesthood? – Tim […]

6. mattstat - November 2, 2014

Let’s don’t buy into the Protestant-Atheist line that evolution somehow “proves” the non-existence of God. An absurd false dichotomy. As said above, each of these 44 points have good answers to them. And some of the points are silly, like the Piltdown Man: if cheating falsified a theory then every time some crank put forward a perpetual motion machine, we’d have to reject mechanistic physics.

If you want to know where evolution fails dismally, look to evolutionary psychology. What an awful field! One Just So story after another. I highly recommend (atheist!) David Stove’s “Darwinian Fairytales” or (atheist!) David Berlinski’s “The Devil’s Delusion.”

And I can’t even imagine why we’d quail at the Big Bang—first posited by a Catholic priest, don’t forget. How beautifully consonant it is with our faith! Is it certainly true? No. Is it likely true? Yes. I recommend Alan Guth’s semi-popular book as a start (but it does require a healthy knowledge of physics).

If you’re going to make criticisms of any subject, make sure you learn that subject first. The last thing we need now is for people to think we Catholics are unscientific.

7. bill russell - November 2, 2014

Popes including Pius XII (Humani generis), John Paul II and Benedict XVI have taught that some forms of evolution theory that do not deny monogenesis are perfectly consistent with Church teaching. Read the great Father Stanley Jaki of the Pontifical Academy of Science.

8. john albertson - November 3, 2014

The fifth unmanned supply vehicle of the European Space Agency, launched this year, was named after a Catholic priest, Belgian Monsignor Georges Lemaître, one of the greatest cosmologists in history. This very interesting ESA video explains why, and includes uncommon footage of the Monsignor explaining his idea of the “primeval Atom” now called the Big Bang.

Remember, the only Mass ever celebrated by Msgr. Lemaître, who died in 1966 while president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (of which he had been a member since 1936), was the Traditional Mass.

LaGallina - November 3, 2014

Of course he only said the Traditional Mass — he was a Catholic priest who died before the new mass existed. But saying the “Traditional” Mass did not make priests infallible. What a silly suggestion.

TG - November 3, 2014

Yes, that is silly. Good point LaGallina.

9. Ludolphus the Carthusian - November 3, 2014

I am not a scientist but an Oxford-educated Classicist. I assist athe TLM at Maiden Lane here pn Monday evenings at 6.30pm – Missa Cantata – all welcome.

As long as the direct Creation of Adam is unaffected I am happy to believe that Evolution may be the best way to explain why we have hands and feet.

You are attacking the wrong target, my friend.

As Pope Pius XII said in Humani Generis published on 12th August 1950:

36. For these reasons 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. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.


I prefer to follow Pope Pius XII. You do not have his level of Authority!!

So I am happy to accept (as an non-Scientist) that Evolution may be true – but Our Creator creates every Human Soul and evolution cannot deny that.


Tantumblogo - November 3, 2014

So, my fault with a hurried post, I never made the connection between Friday’s post and one on Thursday clear. If folks had read both, they would have known that I do acknowledge that some recent popes have said that acceptance of evolution is not counter to the Faith, if understood in the right way. But on the other hand, they haven’t made it mandatory.

I am not scientifically illiterate. I am a real live engineer that has 1000x the claim to “inventing the internet” than Al Gore has. I did everything required for an MSME but figured out spending months on that thesis wouldn’t improve my career prospects even slightly. So I left it. But I also know that there is absolutely no proof, not one iota, that there has ever been a change in kind from one species to another. All the claims that salamanders became lizards or apes became men are based entirely on inference and not at all on hard evidence. There are other explanations for aspects of the fossil record than those posited by evolution supporters.

The broader point I am trying to make is that the vast, vast majority of people who have no scientific literacy accept the claims of science on faith alone, and this tendency has grown to the point now where science is making similar claims to religion, and has in many respects become a religion. It is interesting to me to see the violent reaction such statements get from scientists, but even more from those who really have no knowledge of the subject (I’m not saying that reaction was seen so much on this blog, but elsewhere) and in fact have degrees in fine arts or history or english and yet they are 100%, utterly convinced that evolution/big bang/etc are all utterly real and not just theories, but hard scientific fact like Reynolds numbers and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That’s BS, they are heavily qualified theories about which there should be an enormous amount of debate and contention were not a rigid doctrinal orthodoxy enforced, the same we see taking shape with regard to gerbal worming.

The main thing I hope folks take away is to perhaps question some of the propagandizing they’ve received on these subjects and re-examine some of the claims from Catholic Tradition. I fervently maintain that acceptance of evolution can be spiritually dangerous, as I’ve seen folks fall away after getting twisted off on that stuff.

10. steve - November 3, 2014

The Church, at least the Latin Church, is gripped by an horrific liturgical crisis.

For the most part, that crisis is responsible for the collapse of the Church, certain the Latin Church, throughout much of the world.

Pope Francis takes time to address Evolution…headlines generated.

Pope Francis takes time to discuss the death penalty…headlines generated.

Imagine the headlines and discussions that Pope Francis would generate if he took time to discuss the horrific collapse of liturgy (and exhorted us to return to Holy Tradition) within the (Latin) Church?

11. TG - November 3, 2014

I agree with you especially your comments on disregarding Adam and Eve. If there is no original sin, our faith is in vain. Same if we don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: