Discourse on the incompatibility of macro-evolution and Catholicism.

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”(Genesis 1:27) This is what is told of the creation of man in the infallible Holy Scriptures, and yet it would be believed, on the basis of no observable evidence, that the divinely inspired book of Genesis is incorrect, and that the theory of Darwinian evolution usurps it. Such a claim is astounding, as scientific consensus is the most inconstant of all things, and yet the unchanging Bible is meant to be reinterpreted on account of a recently acquired scientific dogma, which is yet to be proven true. 

2,400 years ago, Aristotle logically inferred that if two objects of different masses were dropped at the same time, the heavier object would fall faster than the lighter one, and though this was adopted as concurrence for 2,000 years, Galileo proved it incorrect by incorporating the scientific method for the first time in its use, and proving, by means of observable experiment, that Aristotle's theory was incorrect; and so it is that Galileo’s correct understanding has since been embraced by the scientific community. 

Neither Aristotle nor Galileo’s assertions were necessarily unscientific, but Galileo’s was provenly correct by means of experimentation, while Aristotle’s was proven incorrect by the same experiment. It is however impossible to observe evolutionary changes, because they supposedly occur over a vast period of time, which is incompatible with the scientific method, and yet nearly universally accepted for no greater reason than Aristotle’s theory was accepted for. 

Aristotle’s theory, however, was not in direct contradiction to the Bible, while Darwin’s theory of evolution, if true, would undermine the very basis on which the entire world was built, as well as the basis for which humanity exists. If the creation of Adam and Eve was simply metaphorical, and there was no first man or woman, nor tree of knowledge, nor serpent, nor any other thing spoken of, then the premise of the inheritance of sinful nature through original sin would be wholly untrue, as the original sin would be nonexistent. If so, then a saviour would be unnecessary, as sin would be conducted by individual volition rather than inherited disposition, which would give some people the capacity to be free of sin, as Adam was before the first disobedience. 

This is not the case, as there was a need for a saviour who came to this earth 2,000 years ago, and He died so that the wicked deeds of Adam and Eve, extended into all humanity, would not render all humanity damned, but rather provide a means to detach oneself from his or her sin, and allow for them to be saved, no matter how undeserving they may be of it. And as salvation is contingent upon faith, so it is that through faith we may believe biblical truth as fact, rather than allegorical metaphor, unless obviously meant to be so. 

Jesus has indeed referred to Himself as bread, and water, and light, all of which He is obviously not, but used to unfold in a simpler way the truth of His divinity. There is no clear indicator that the Genesis story ought to be treated as such, as the existence of original sin alone ought to be indicative of its historically infallible truth. 

It is said by evolutionists that humanity evolved from primates, who evolved from fish, who evolved from amoebas, who evolved from inanimacy. This conception is not only unprovable, but scientifically impossible, because nonliving things cannot create living things. It is also scientifically impossible for an organism without gender to acquire gender, as would be expected of a genderless amoeba transforming into an animal, such as a fish, which contains both male and female within its species. It is not possible for an organism to evolve from individual replication to reproduction on behalf of two parties over a vast period of time because there is no state of transfiguration between the two means of procreation, meaning that an organism cannot be capable of both bacterial and animalic replication at the same time, nor can it replicate by any other means. What this suggests is that such a transformation would occur at a very specific time, significantly shorter than a human lifespan, and easily observable in order to satisfy the scientific method. This transformation, however, has never been observed in any species at any time, which evidences the infeasibility of such a transformation. 

Moreover, the earliest stages of life being genderless is disproven by Jesus in the synoptic Gospel of Mark, in which He states that, “...from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.”(Mark 10:6) Any hypothesised state of life in which there was no male and female is here disproved by the infallible scripture, in a thoroughly non-allegorical account of events. The synoptic gospels - unlike the gospel of John, which often speaks in indirect metaphor - are entirely based on the facts of Jesus’s life, and recorded in all practicable exactness. This is to say that Jesus’s refutation of “the origin of man”, doubly reinforced by the gospel of Matthew, which says virtually the same thing, can be understood as a factual statement, made by the Son of God and corroborated by two independent parties. 

It must then be inquired as to why the first three chapters of the book of Genesis, which is also historically sound, are being reinterpreted to such extent as to say that it is all factually incorrect, and merely allegorical. If this is the case, then there is no way to determine which parts of the Bible are historical fact, and which are metaphor, which can only be reconciled by the entirety of it being held in verity, lest there be an obvious suggestion of metaphor. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that God initiated and continued the process of creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that all humans have specially created souls for each person, which are unlike that of any other animal. Even as the church regards consideration of authorial intention as necessary to fully understand scripture, it still recognises the historical fact of Adam and Eve’s existence, which has never been scientifically disproven. 

Whatsoever may be claimed, there is no discrepancy between the Bible and a modern scientific understanding of the world relating to that which has been proven as fact, but for that which is merely speculation, of which there is no satisfactory evidence, it is prudent to consider such speculation, when in direct contradiction to Biblical history, null and void. 

There is no thing of certainty but that which God professes by His own voice, and that which He writes by His own hand, or by the hand of another whom the Holy Spirit works through. And the greater revelation may be viewed in art, the truest of all certainties, and greatest means of all creation; so by which the hand of Michelangelo, directed by the Lord, may prove to all the world beyond all mortal doubt that the first creation is not but a thing of truth, but truth of such divinely proven means that all disputed of it err to deny the hand of God in Michelangelo. 

And in Beethoven is the sound of all creation of the earth; of the man which riseth from the soil, which God sculpts and breathes the life into, that he may be the first of God, and first in disobedience, save Eve who is a fool. And as the strings begin the quake of all the music of the world in culmination, so did Beethoven himself, when speaking of his 9th and greatest symphony say that this was of creation, of the angels great rebellion, of the fall of Lucifer, the morningstar, the life arising from the rubble, as the phoenix from the ash, which is made imperfect by the serpent’s temptation, but restored by Christ’s salvation of humanity.

In short, there is no macroevolution. There is no reason to believe it scientifically, and there is no scriptural nor revelatory basis to believe in it. It is the imperative of Catholics to not be led astray from sound doctrine, but to hold to that which the Church has taught for 2,000 years, and for just as long has interpreted the scriptures to purport. And thus, if we walk forth upon a path of truth, we must arrive at the conclusion that evolution, as currently taught and understood, has no scientific or scriptural basis to it whatsoever.