jump to navigation

Acceptance of Evolution of Species at the Root of Decline of Christianity September 6, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, different religion, error, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.

Some interesting analysis by the protestant author Phillip E. Johnson in his book Defeating Darwinism on the role evolution plays in the political/cultural attacks on Christianity and its undermining from within our Faith.  In brief, even noted leaders of the materialist-scientific left have admitted that what they are positing is in essence a new religion in competition to Christianity (as I have personally maintained for years), but perhaps their greatest success in weakening Christianity as a counter-cultural force has come from the “conversions” they have won among “Christians” themselves, most notably among the leadership of most “mainline” protestant sects and within the Catholic Church itself.

Basically, we are confronted with a choice – accept Darwinism and the materialist secularist ethos, which posits that either there is no God, or, if He is permitted to exist, that he is a distant and uncaring Creator who is not involved a whit in human lives, or be a believing Christian*. Do choose wisely (excerpts cut and paste from pp. 98-101):

Julian Huxley was the grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, also known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” because he was the most important early champion of Darwin’s theory.  TH Huxley had also invented the word agnostic to describe his own religious views.  Julian Huxley was one of the scientific founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, the modern version of Darwin’s theory.  He was also the promoter of a naturalistic religion called evolutionary humanism, and the founding secretary general of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.  In short, Julian Huxley was one of the most influential intellectuals of the mid-20th century, and 1959 was the high-water mark of his influence  [1959 being the centennial of Darwin’s publishing On the Origin of Species]  . Here are some excerpts from Huxley’s remarks at the centennial celebration:

“Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours – the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself………This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers to human societies and values – indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. [Hmmm……an all-encompassing philosophy that claims to explain all of life, where it came from  (nothing), what it means (nothing), and what moral behaviors must be accepted or rejected (those of the connected elite)……sounds kinda like a religion to me]

“In 1859 Darwin opened the passage leading to a new psycho-social level, with a new pattern of ideological organization – an evolution-centered organization of thought and belief.  [This is sort of an aside, but there is also a profound political angle to all this.  There is a very strong correlation between leftist politics and both support of evolution/scientific materialism and rejection of Christianity.  These go hand in hand.  Indeed, leftist politics are simply the governmental arm of the religion of sexular paganism or scientific materialism. But don’t think this is just incidental.  Darwin’s theory did not evolve in a bubble.  He set out to establish a scientific belief that would be gravely harmful to Christianity.  I increasingly believe that, at least among the upper hierarchy of leftist power-brokers, their war against Christianity is as deliberate as Soviet purges of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the exact same reasons – their hellish omnipotent state can have no competitor for the love of the souls of men.]

“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural.  The earth was not created, it evolved.  So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it……….

“…...Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era”.  [sexular paganism – and yes, 1959 was a time when this new false demonic religion was becoming readily discernible to those with eyes to see]

In short, the triumph of Darwin implied the death of God and set the stage for replacing biblical religion with a new faith based on evolutionary naturalism.  That new faith would become the basis not just of science but also of government, law, and morality.  It would be the established religious philosophy of modernity[And indeed, it has.  I am largely unplugged from the culture, but what I still see has terrified me.  In the past 15 years the acceptance of evolution as hard truth and Christianity as fantasy has exploded to a degree never before seen. We have seen government, law, and, especially, morality, collapse as this radical shift in belief has occurred. But how has this suddenly happened?  Well…………]

………..The liberalized Christianity [of today] has been far more effective in legitimizing evolutionary naturalism than the explicit [and militant] atheism of Richard Dawkins……….Why repudiate Christianity explicitly when its rituals and language can be taken over and given a naturalistic meaning? [Remind anyone of anything that happened in the late 60s?! Something about a “new order?”]  The death of God does not require the end of religion or even the end of the traditional Christian denominations.  On the contrary, the new religion Huxley foresaw was already securely established within mainline protestant denominations.  Liberal ministers and theologians try to “save” Christianity by “demythologizing” it – removing or downplaying those supernatural elements that are so embarrassing to modernists.  [Indeed. The entire modernist heresy was nothing but an attempt to “reconcile” Catholicism with the theory of evolution, but with the Faith, of course, subordinated to the “fact” of evolution.  Neo-modernism of the conciliar mold does exactly the same.]

……..Politically astute scientific naturalists feel no hostility towards those religious leaders who implicitly accept the key naturalistic doctrine that supernatural powers do not actually affect the course of nature. [Why would they?  They recognize in those religious leaders co-religionists of a slightly different sect.  That is to say, the religious leaders ultimately worship Darwin, even if they sprinkle a little Christobabble over it to make it more palatable to the masses.]

I am not a militant anti-evolutionist by any means, I have not argued against Carbon 14 dating, performed detailed studies on the weaknesses in the fossil record (which do, however, appear to be mammoth), or have a completely firm and provable belief that the earth is exactly 6000 or 8000 or 10000 years old (though I do think it likely far, far younger than most all scientists believe) but I have for a number of years now basically disbelieved in evolution. I do so on the basis of a good bit of evidence but also as a conscious choice, because I believe in Jesus Christ and the Church He founded, and will not consciously permit anything to enter my thinking which poses a threat to that belief.  There are many reasons for this.  Far from the best reason, though an eminently practical one, is that belief in evolution buys me nothing, save some vague belief that I am somehow “educated” and part of the “in crowd,” while it threatens the most precious thing I can obtain in this life, the object around which this life of mine must and I pray always will revolve: working out my salvation with fear and trembling.

Having said that, as a degreed engineer I’ve certainly been through the secular materialist/pagan indoctrination camps and was never, ever much convinced.  I always felt the culturally approved explanations of the “origin of species” involved far too much hand-waving and appeals to authority to be valid.  As I’ve grown older, I’ve also come to surmise that the greatness and vastness of variety in God’s Creation are far beyond the capabilities of tidy little Victorian minds like Darwin’s to grasp, let alone describe.

*- There is a third option, but one that rarely lasts long.  That is to try to balance between acceptance of evolution in a nominal sense while gutting/redefining large portions of Scripture to accord with this purported “scientific truth.”  This is the tack many Christians have taken, but almost inevitably one must make a choice between belief in God and Sacred Scripture/Tradition, or this religion of men we are being sold. Experience shows that the large majority of those who open themselves up to dabbling in or considering evolution will fall away, or at best have a very confused and probably very cold faith.

The Church stood firmly against evolution for about 100 years, but silently, invisibly, far too many priests and others who rose to positions of power in the mid-20th century accepted its fundamental tenets.  It is from this belief that the modernist threat was born, and it is no accident at all that one of the most influential modernists of the past century, and perhaps the intellectual guidestar of the disastrous Council, Tielhard de Chardin, was also an avid Darwinist, to the extent of even attempting to perpetrate frauds purporting to provide the “missing link” between humans and apes.  See “Piltdown Man” and “Peking Man.”


1. Tim - September 7, 2017

Evolution is dogmatically condemned by the Church. CASE. CLOSED.

In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council solemnly proclaimed:
“Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God […] by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal […]” (DZ 428)
The Provincial Council of Cologne (1860) made the following pronouncement one year after the appearance of Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species” (1859):
“Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”
Nine years later, the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), quoting the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), taught the following:
“This sole true God ‘immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal’ […]” (DZ 1783)
The accompanying anathema reads as follows:
“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing […] let him be anathema.” (DZ 1805)

2. Brian E. Breslin - September 7, 2017

Tantum, awesome pun man- mammoth! Good one.
Good Tantumian comments all around.

3. Eoin Suibhne - September 7, 2017

Apropos of your last paragraph, an article written by the academic dean at Wyoming Catholic College, lamenting “the Catholic theistic evolutionists [who] overstep science’s bounds when they claim that debatable theories, such as the theory of evolution, are ‘facts.’ (And yes, such folks are well represented at even the “good” Catholic schools.)


4. johnbryson - September 7, 2017

I tool took the opportunity this summer to educate my children about the arguments against evolution and for a created world and universe. We watched several videos on the internet that were quite interesting. These included videos from Kolbe Center for the Study of creation, Evolution Fact or Belief?, Creation Astronomy – What you aren’t being told about Astronomy, Incredible Creatures that defy Evolution and Dr John Sanford – Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Genome.

My 11 and 12 year olds did a decent job of following along. And I recommend everyone to check these videos out. There are many many many inconsistencies with the theory of evolution. Inconsistencies regarding to the creation of the universe from an explosion (order out of chaos), to the creation of our solar system from dust particles, to the interpretation of time via stratification layers to how a woodpecker “evolved”.

In Christ

dfw - September 14, 2017


Took a brief look at the Kolbe Center website. Noticed one of their listed speakers is Hugh Owen. I thought he sounded familiar.


“He also serves as the Director of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, an apostolate he founded in the Jubilee Year 2000, to provide a forum for Catholic theologians, philosophers, and natural scientists who reject the evolutionary hypothesis and who defend the traditional Catholic interpretation of Genesis 1-11.”


I had heard of him since he has been associated with the writings of Venerable Luisa Piccarreta who wrote extensively about the Coming of the Kingdom of the Divine Will. I don’t have a problem with her, but her writings have been considered controversial by some in the Church. Her cause for canonization is being pursued and her writings studied by authorities.


“Thanks to the work of God in the soul of Luisa Piccarreta (1865-1947) and her lifelong cooperation with this divine work, we understand and proclaim that this Gift of the Divine Will was given to our parents, Adam and Eve, and that It formed the perfect, original state of man, which was lost by Adam when he was tested for his obedience and fidelity to the very Author of his life. We understand and proclaim that the principal, human problem is the separation of the human will from the Divine Will. This resulted from Adam’s disobedience, and no one has possessed and lived in the Divine Will, except the most holy Virgin Mary, since the fall of Adam until the Lord’s Prayer was fulfilled in Luisa Piccarreta. Near the end of the Second Millennium of Christianity, and after sufficient purification of the human will of mankind, the Reign of the Divine Will will flourish everywhere on earth as It reigns in Heaven.”

“We understand and proclaim that for our mission to be successful that it must be the action of God Himself in us, that we must be always open to Divine Grace as faithful cooperators of this divine action. We further understand and proclaim that Divine Wisdom has provided many avenues and ways to achieve this sublime mission and that we will gratefully make use of every avenue and way that Divine Providence makes known and available to us.”

5. Ever mindful - September 7, 2017

“God alone satisfies.” St Thomas Aquinas


6. TF - September 7, 2017

While we’re at it, we need to jettison the “Big Bang Theory” for the false creation story that it is. There is very little scientific evidence in favor of it, and a whole lot that falsifies it. Plus it was dreamt up by a Modernist Jesuit in the early 20th Century. That should make you think twice about it right there.

I like Mother Angelica’s incredulous response to the priests of Scientism who declare as undisputed facts events which supposedly occurred billions of years ago: “You were there?”

johnbryson - September 7, 2017

I am very interested in watching the video. Can you post the think? I can’t find it on youtube.


TF - September 8, 2017

Sorry, John, there is probably no video available of it. It was a comment Mother Angelica made in the middle of one of her programs probably 25 years ago; it had such a profound effect on my thinking that I still remember it well. I think she was actually quoting one of her aunts, or somebody she knew well. It’s a great response to anyone who presents completely unverifiable opinions of supposed past events as dogmatic fact. e.g.,

Scientist: “We know that the earth was formed 3.7 billion years ago out of cosmic dust …”
Mother Angelica’s Aunt: “You were there?”

Tim - September 8, 2017

Mother Angelica was great!

7. c matt - September 7, 2017

With micro-evolution, I have no problem. Macro, however, seems to have pretty big holes – one that my high school history teacher pointed out – not only would a genetic mutation need to happen that was beneficial (and not just beneficial, but non-mutated genes must have expressed themselves in a distinct dis-advantage), for sexually reproducing organisms, the mutation would have to happen to a compatible couple, who were in sufficient proximity to seek each other out and mate, and the gene would have to manifest in the offspring, eventually becoming normative. Lot’s of assumptions/wishful thinking. And that doesn’t even include Behe’s irreducible complexity argument.

Tantumblogo - September 7, 2017

Thanks for bringing this up. When we speak of “evolution” which evolution do we mean? Micro-evolution is what we commonly hear described by scientists – beak variations in birds or fish growing longer tails to swim faster and thus survive predators better – but the materialist scienticians have long done a bait and switch, describing evolution functioning along a micro-evolutionary scale but then claiming that is how we get the macro-evolutionary final product, when there has been virtually zero proof of any such transformations between species. And how to explain the Cambrian explosion in species? And what of irreducibly complex functions like eyesight? How could these unbelievably complex and delicate systems have evolved? To net a benefit, they would have had to appear all at once. But such changes are beyond the scope of long-time-period evolution to achieve.

8. c matt - September 7, 2017

Putting the truth or falsity of Darwinism aside, the other problem is simply applying a theory regarding material phenomena to non-material issues. No one in their right mind would argue that our criminal justice or family law policies should be based on Newtonian physics.

Tantumblogo - September 7, 2017

Thumbs up.

9. Josh - September 7, 2017

Before going down this route I would highly recommend anything from the Thomistic Institute, but primarily the following audio clip by Thomas Joseph White, O.P. speaking on: “Are Christianity and Evolution Compatible”

Does evolution commit a believer to be a materialist, or follow scientism? I think not. The problem is not evolution, it is scientists and thinkers over stepping the boundaries of scientific methods and perhaps unknowingly doing philosophy, erroneously arguing that evolution commits one to materialism, deism or scientism. Yet we cannot easily dismiss evolution.

As it stands if we throw evolution out with the bath water many other things are called into question: carbon dating (as you mentioned), genetics, geology, paleontology, cosmology, and so on. As Thomas Joseph White, O.P. states: “Many of the ways we know the universe we’ve developed is multifarious… a lot of these ways of knowing the universe are independent, but deeply convergent. For example, Big Bang Cosmology which suggests the universe is 14 billion years old, that there is evidence of earth’s geological development over time with plate tectonics, the paleontology and evidence of a wide diversity of living forms, the evidence of millions of extinct species, and the evidence of intermediate forms of species (e.g. examples of the modern human being), modern cellular biology, the correlation between genetics and traits in living things, evidence of micro-mutations today… The problem is if you start to deny evolution, you don’t just have to deal with explaining one of these features, but you have to deal with all the other elements as well… You have a lot of problems to solve if you do not go down the road of all these convergent evidence which correlates and explains a great deal.”

The Church and many of its greatest thinkers such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure are just a few that understood (for instance) that the Genesis account is not literally the account of creation in six twenty four hour days. On Being and Essence (Ente et Essentia) by Aquinas is a good read to see how he would deal with micro vs. macro evolution (he has not need to distinguish the two). Pius XII in Humani Generis stated that the soul is created immediately by God, but that evolution can be a scientific hypothesis.

Someday something besides evolution may come along, but in itself evolution is not the problem, it is poor philosophy, poor scriptural exegesis, and most of all poor metaphysics.

Louis Gasper - September 7, 2017

Josh, you make sober and sensible points. When we consider the similarities among species both presently and in the fossil record, we cannot reasonably maintain that life on earth has not evolved. It is unfortunate that “scientists” have claimed too much, that they insist they are certain how evolution works, in particular that there are adequate hypotheses to account for speciation or for the origin of life. That evolution has happened is clear enough, how it happens — despite all the bluster from militant philosophical evolutionists — is very much unknown. The “blind materialism” hypothesis is just that, it is not a “fact,” and there is no reason to think that it ever will be established as fact.

TF - September 8, 2017

“When we consider the similarities among species both presently and in the fossil record, we cannot reasonably maintain that life on earth has not evolved.”

Really? You cannot imagine an alternative? How about this: the Omniscient, Omnipotent, God; the Prime Mover, the Immutable, Infinite God, the God Who Is, spoke, and the universe and everything in it was created whole, perfect, and in its entire substance. And it was Good. Not on its way to being good. Not malformed. It was Good. Perfect. Death and decay only came after Adam disobeyed God, as Revelation teaches us, and all the Fathers of the Church firmly held.

Similarities among species is easily understood when one considers that they were all created by the one God. That we don’t understand what we see in fossil record, etc., is due to the incomplete nature of the evidence, and our extremely limited intellects (compared to those of the angels). In fact, much of what is presented as evidence by scientists is not raw evidence, but rather interpretations of the evidence based on unmerited assumptions. In any case, it is possible and reasonable for us to fit the evidence, rightly considered, within the framework of the history given to us by God in Genesis (who’d a thunk?). See kolbecenter.org.

Tantumblogo - September 7, 2017

What does belief in evolution net me or mine? Experience shows it poses a great risk to my faith. Why is it so important to cling to this theory, which is nothing but? I don’t see people putting such great stock in actual physical laws, like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, or Maxwell’s equations. Those are far more proven and established scientific theorems.

The point is, evolution isn’t just a theory, it’s the wedge issue or entry point for an entire materialist philosophy. If you want to accept it at least understand that what is sold as evolution is much more than just a theory or scientific “fact” but an entire philosophy, and one that has been used to attack the Christian Faith from its inception, and was indeed designed to do just that.

Tim - September 7, 2017

Thumbs up!

JArrington - September 8, 2017

With all due respect to Fr. Thomas, he’s barking up the wrong tree, or more precisely, he’s asking the wrong question (and, incidentally, a question which fewer and fewer ask at all!). It’s not, “are Christianity and Evolution compatible?”. It’s rather, “what are natural, physical (chemical, biological, etc.) *truths* and *very well supported* hypotheses which do not contradict revealed truths?”, or something along those lines.

And, I love the remark, “what does evolution net me or mine?” That’s not at all the snide comment from Euclid’s follower, “what does it benefit me to know geometry?”; rather, “what intellectual good”, or what other truths are made more patent by leaning toward this hypothesis’ consistency…in micro-evolution alone?

I can’t find any after having looked for 20 years, but I’m open to others’ comments. What truths are clearer if we should’ve first believed in evolution?

10. Blaine - September 7, 2017

I’ve discounted evolution 100%. And actually, I’m leaning towards a young(ish)-Earth version of creationism. For me, I see no reason God (you know, being omnipotent and all) couldn’t (or wouldn’t) create a universe “in medias res” if you will so that things like geological formations could be extrapolated logically backwards before creation. I believe Adam and Eve were our first parents. I believe in the flood. Reading articles from the Kolbe Crnter for the Study of Creation (http://kolbecenter.org/) and listening to Sensus Fidelium have convinced me. It wouldn’t be the first time I have found that which I’ve been taught in school was a lie.

This in particular amazes me: http://kolbecenter.org/god-family-genetics-bible-perspective/

The other bottom line is this: believing one way or the other won’t affect my 80 years or so on earth one iota, but choosing wrong will affect eternity. As for me and my house…

11. Tim - September 7, 2017

” we cannot reasonably maintain that life on earth has not evolved.”

So, the dogmatic teachings of the 4th Lateran and 1st Vatican Councils are in error? That’s quite a brazen assertion. See 1st comment.

12. Tim - September 7, 2017


13. Tim - September 7, 2017

Big Bang = BS

14. Tim - September 7, 2017

Tim - September 7, 2017

To quote Father: “PERIOD. CLOSE. THE. BOOK.

15. Antonia - September 7, 2017

I tend to agree with you, Josh, that theistic evolution ties in well with the majority of scientific evidence from various disciplines. However, I would be just as happy to find out that God had created human bodies from absolutely nothing (as I’m sure you would be).

This is an important topic, especially because these days we all need to be very scientifically AND theologically literate to do battle with the horrible genetic and embryonic manipulation that is coming at us full speed in the world of biomedical research. It seems to me our bishops and even lay Catholics need to start speaking up powerfully & frequently against these things before they go any further. The research has already gone much too far!

We need to be very, very careful not to tie our religious beliefs to any one scientific theory, so that we don’t put others’ faith, or our own, in jeopardy if that theory turns out to be wrong. Whether God worked swiftly or slowly, out of materials He created previously out not, does not matter for our faith – beyond the fascination and wonder of learning the truth of how He worked these beautiful creations. So let’s keep this as a scientific question and not stake any faith claims in the details of *how* He did it.

Just because atheist materialists / leftists / “sexular pagans” have tied the theory of evolution to atheism does not mean we need to take the opposite stance against evolution. Remember the devil likes to present errors on both sides to trap us. Here’s a quote I found from CS Lewis (not sure if this is an accurate quotation or not, but it expresses the thought I wad looking for): “He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs–pairs of opposites…He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”

Antonia - September 8, 2017

Typo, sorry! Where I said “Whether God worked swiftly or slowly, out of materials He created previously OUT not, does not matter for our faith…”

should instead say “Whether God worked swiftly or slowly, out of materials He created previously OR not….”

Tim - September 9, 2017

“A defined dogma of the Catholic Church, by the way, which you must believe in order to be saved.”……Michael Matt

16. FL_Catholic - September 7, 2017

I’m glad that Josh was the voice of common sense on this thread. There is no reason that evolution cannot be in accord with Catholic theology. The Church has infallibly declared that all humans descend from one pair of humans (Adam and Eve) and that God creates each Soul and every soul is unique. So those are givens. But there is nothing to say that God could not have created the material world, guided evolution with His Almighty power and wisdom, until he fashioned two humans who were in His image and likeness and these he breathed the first human souls into and placed into the Garden. The rest of the humanoids outside of the Garden could then have lived and died and died out while our first parents This would explain the other humanoid fossils which have been discovered and would not in any way doubt the descent of humanity from one pair of parents. Then, after our parents sinned and were kicked out, the Genesis account clearly describes a material world that was already created which existed outside the walls of the Garden. It doesn’t state that God had to create a new world for our parents to live in before He kicked them out of the Garden. So there really is no reason to say that its evolution or creationism or nothing else. the two are compatible.

And while I understand Tim’s repeated points about Councils centuries ago, there is nothing they state that refutes what I or Josh said. The Fathers of those Councils didn’t know about dinosaurs, does that mean that the fossil fuels we use daily couldn’t possibly exist either? There’s a fine line between defending the Truth and becoming an anti-science crazy person. God gave us both reason and common sense, so how about we use those gifts, shall we?

Tim - September 7, 2017

“There’s a fine line between defending the Truth and becoming an anti-science crazy person.”

So, I’m an “anti-science crazy person”? OPEN. MOUTH. INSERT. FOOT.

My livelihood is based in science. I have earned three degrees FL_Catholic…Bachelor of Science, Chemistry, University of Pittsburgh 1988, Bachelor of Science, Biology, University of Pittsburgh 1988 and Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, 1994.

I love science, I hate false and politically motivated “science”. So you and the “scientists” you so admire know more than 2 ecumenical councils and multiple popes and true scientists who refute it as total bunk? (much like “climate change”) Careful what names you call people as it may come back to make you look foolish.

“about Councils centuries ago”….CLASSIC modernism…..what does the passage of time have to do with truth?

FL_Catholic - September 8, 2017

Modernism has nothing to do with it. Councils, like popes, should stay within their duly appointed scope of authority: teaching and defending the Faith and morals. When they try to stray into science you get nonsense like Laudato Si and a Cardinals defending the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. All that does is hurt the reputation and teaching authority of the Church.

While I agree completely that much science the last hundred years has been weaponized (ex: global warming, sociology, and much of psychology), to dismiss out of hand the best theory we have to explain the fossil records, the geological records, and even things like astronomy which prove how ancient the universe itself is, is indeed anti-science. Your degrees prove nothing to me except that you might be a decent vet to bring my cat to.

Every reply you have written, whether to me or to someone else, has been nothing more than an appeal to authority in some fashion, which is a logical fallacy. When that has failed, you set up the boogie-man of MODERNISM (I can almost hear the screams of horror at the mere mention of the word) to try and shut down your opponent, which is another logical fallacy.

I notice that you took zero time to try and react to anything else I wrote, instead trying to shut me down using fallacies and rejecting my views out of hand. Who’s the anti-intellectual now?

Tim - September 8, 2017


Take it up with Pope St. Pius X:


You never answered my question: What does the passage of time have to do with truth?

You made the assertion that I am an anti-science crazy person. You are objectively wrong. People like you who buy into false and blasphemous agenda driven “science” are the one who are, in reality, “anti-science” as you haven’t the courage to call out these “scientists” who are servants of Satan.

I don’t care what you think of my education, I simply used that to demonstrate that your absurd assertion about me was 100% false.

Do you understand that once something has been ruled on infallibly it is a done deal. PERIOD. CLOSE. THE. BOOK.
Try listening to the sermons I posted and try and refute them….I wish you luck friend.

We had a very interesting sermon a few weeks ago about science/religion. The main point was that the Church embraces and encourages true science and if there is ever a seeming “conflict” between the Churches teachings and doctrines and science(in reality impossible) then there is a defect in the science and/or there is an agenda present. Lesser sciences….biology, chemistry, physics, etc. are under the truths of the higher sciences of theology and philosophy and must be consistent with them. Just as our temporal laws should be consistent with the laws of God….many are not and see the societal and cultural results.

So an appeal to dogmatic authority is a logical fallacy? Do you understand even the basic tenants of Catholic theology? 2 Infallible ecumenical councils have ruled on this, the second with an accompanying anathema…..I’m sticking with them rather than the likes of Dawkins or yourself.

You get nonsense like Laudato Si and Amoris Latetia because of nonsense like Darwinism and any agenda driven “science”. Again, poor adherence to Traditional Catholic Theology leads us to our present state with the errors of Vatican 2, the protestant liturgy known as the Novus Ordo, gay “marriage”, abortion on demand, destruction of the family, environmentalist wackoism, socialism, communism, eugenics, Darwinism as something compatible with Catholic truth, etc., etc., etc.

Fossil record, geologic records, astronomy……talk about agenda’s! Why do you worship these golden calves?

Anti-intellectual? How intellectual is it to believe in unproven fantasies in order to not look like you aren’t “sophisticated”?……human respect.

I hope your cat is healthy and I hope you don’t have to endure too much this weekend as Irma plows through your state.

Tim - September 9, 2017

Holy mackerel!, Bono gets it! Why do neo-Catholic “sophisticated science” people not get it??

17. Tim - September 7, 2017

18. Tim - September 7, 2017

19. Tim - September 7, 2017

20. Tim - September 7, 2017

21. Tim - September 7, 2017

22. If the “Alt-Right” Wants to “Save the White Race,” Maybe They Should Start Having a Few Babies | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - September 7, 2017

[…] on a final, but unrelated note, regarding yesterday’s post on evolution being the seed-bed for the collapse of Christianity, consider the following from another Youtube […]

23. Eric Bermingham - September 8, 2017

From a scientific viewpoint, the Achilles heel of evolution is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law says that in any process, disorder (entropy) increases. That means everything falls apart by itself. Your room does not clean itself. Your car does not fix itself. The stars are all dying out and there is no natural way for them to reconstitute themselves.

The theory of Evolution says just the opposite; that everything gets better by itself. Things grow limbs, they develop lungs, they sprout wings, they start walking upright – but we are not sure exactly how that happens but one day we will understand everything, just you wait and see.

The theory of Evolution is the biggest scientific fraud of all time. It is a fairy tale for adults. It is incompatible with a Biblically-based faith like Christianity. Catholics especially need to wake up and understand what has happened.

Tim - September 10, 2017


Tantumblogo - September 13, 2017

I think I’ve done a post on that in the past.

A bit surprised at all the love for evolution coming out of the woodwork.

Tim - September 14, 2017

Sadly, I’m not surprised. In this age of rampant modernism, the Novus Ordo, the errors of Vatican 2, poor catechism, widespread lack of knowledge of Catholic theology and philosophy and the diefication of “science” I’m surprised there’s as much good sense here that’s opposing this fraud.

24. Tim - September 8, 2017

25. dfw - September 9, 2017

My father recently had his DNA tested by one of the companies that does such things.

They reported he has more neanderthal DNA than 93% of their tested population.

I’m not saying humans necessarily “evolved” from neanderthals but their DNA in humans seems to suggest there was some sort of interbreeding.

Where does the anti-evolution strain in many Catholics originate ? My understanding is that evolution has always been presented as a THEORY, neither proven nor disproven, and that it is perfectly acceptable for Catholics to believe it as a possible explanation for the origin of mankind.

“Science” is not a Bad Thing. Like any other knowledge or tool, it can be used for good or evil.

Catholic Answers : https://www.catholic.com/tract/adam-eve-and-evolution

Did Neanderthals Have a Soul ?

(And what about Bigfoot? Does it exist ? How “human” is it / he / she ? Does it have a human-like soul ?)

Tim - September 14, 2017

“Where does the anti-evolution strain in many Catholics originate ? ”

From the 4th Lateran Council and the 1st Vatican Council……see 1st comment in thread.

It is a twice defined dogma (meaning you must believe it to be saved) that all creatures were created by God both corporeally and spiritually from nothing. Therefore a Catholic seeking salvation must reject the false religion that masquarades as “science” of evolution.


dfw - September 14, 2017

Well, I’m interested in truth as much as anyone I hope, however the second account of creation in the Bible says God created both man and animals out of the ground, not ex nihilo.

1:27 God created man in his image;
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them.

2:7 * the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

2:19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air,

Tim - September 14, 2017

Hmmmmmmm…..let’s see “Catholic” Answers vs. 4th Lateran Council and the 1st Vatican Council……….I know whom I’m sticking with!!

dfw - September 14, 2017

You may not have had time to read the Catholic Answers link, I know people are busy but here is one point:

“Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “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 . . . 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—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).”

Tim - September 14, 2017

2 Ecumenical Councils dogmatically defining this matter trump even Pius XII or any other pope and they most definitely trump the theories of “scientists “.


What part of the concept that all defined dogmas must be believed to attain salvation don’t you get?

Don’t want to look like a “fool” with the “in” crowd. It’s better to be a fool for Christ. The only “in” crowd that I’m interested in being a part of is the Communion of Saints.


dfw - September 15, 2017

“the Pope’s sell-out to the Jews” — from the Remnant’s history page — really ?

No, I don’t have a “problem” with Latin Mass as long as its in union with the Church.

Yes, I attend Mass in English. Maybe you should be more concerned about my falling into hell due to my liturgical choices rather than worrying about my sould based on where I stand on evolution.

If you’re one of the people who reject Vatican II then I can understand why you think the way you do. I don’t think Vatican II was invalid but, yes, of course, some people took advantage of it and decided to take things in an incorrect direction.

Tim - September 14, 2017
dfw - September 15, 2017

from Remnant’s history page —

“Since that time, The Remnant has worked to encourage all traditional Catholics—both “approved” and “unapproved”—to work as the “loyal resistance”—that is, loyal to Peter but in adamant resistance to the revolution of Vatican II.”

“Over the years, Walter Matt’s Remnant collaborated with and supported such notable organizations and individuals as Hamish Fraser, Dietrich von Hildebrand, the priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Bishops Williamson and Fellay, as well as many priests of the SSPX,..”

SSPX ? Lefebvre was excommunicated.

The Remnant on their history page claims that things have been smoothed over. However doing an internet search it seems things aren’t so clear.

I will continue to keep an eye out as to SSPX’s status. although that’s not one of my main priorities in life and I don’t plant to spend a lot of time on it.

Tim - September 15, 2017
Tim - September 15, 2017

The “excommunications” were invalid.

Tim - September 15, 2017

Where you stand on evolution is at odds with 2 infallible Ecumenical Councils, you should be concerned. That you have these beliefs and attend the Novus Ordo makes perfect sense. I attend SSPX, FSSP, ICK or Diocean TLM and if need be the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, but never the Novus Ordo. And, no, before you have a hissy fit, I did not say I am “better” than you. I pray you will obtain the grace to accept the truth.

26. Margaret Costello - September 13, 2017

Every time I hear about evolution it’s like my IQ drops 30 points. WE come from apes? Seriously? Did you know that they whole “we are only 2% different from apes” was a lie? That they threw out most of the genes they couldn’t explain and based it on that. When they include ALL the genes, we are over 60% different from our so called “ancestors”.

And don’t get me started on “carbon dating”. Do you realize how many assumptions they make in that testing that can never be proved? i.e. the stability of the EM field? The original amount of daughter material? The entire test is invalid and unreliable. It’s why one block of coal that sits right next to another can be “thousands” of years apart. Idiotic. Again…my brain is getting dumber.

And of course, the comment above is spot on. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points AWAY from evolution and toward decay.

I could go on and on about the utter stupidity of this theory…ugh…if it were true we would EASILY be able to scientifically replicate the evolutionary process…yet it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to a) find ANY fossil record of such process and b) to actually change species in a lab. If anything, our genetic research has found that there is a high degree of protection and aversion to ANY change or blending of species. And that the variations are actually the genetic expressions already present in the genome.

But what really places the dunce cap on this moronic theory is MATH. Because at the end of the day, the mathematical probability that the eukaryotic cell just “evolved” into existence is beyond googolplexian. One eukaryotic cell has more information in it than the entire space shuttle. Yeah. That just “evolved” from a bunch of water hitting a rock over a loooooong period of time. And then our ancestors mated with monkeys, committed beastiality and all was well.

Yeah, good luck with being “ok” with “evolution” and the truth of the Catholic Church..it doesn’t work out. Reason doesn’t fit that batch of crazy.

God bless~

27. Errors of “Big Bang” Cosmology and Other Good Sermons | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - September 13, 2017

[…] I posted a link to the first sermon below – back when Audio Sancto was a going concern – back in 2013.  It’s been on Youtube for some time, but the timing felt right again to bring up this subject, what with all the comments received in the post I did on evolution being at the foundation of the collapse of Christianity in the 20th cent…. […]

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: