A Christian Rebuttal to Darwinian Evolution

Mitochondrial Eve

I came across a very interesting book recently, Evolution: The Human Story, by Dr. Alice Roberts. It is similar to several other recent books explaining human evolution, but this book was beautifully done with many photographs and charts outlining human evolution beginning around seven to ten million years ago. It started from primate origins and progressed through three genera of proto-humans and three species of the genus Homo finally arriving at Homo sapiens, the only species of humans still flourishing on earth.

Evolution’s Dominance

The theory of evolution comes from Charles Darwin who argued that the origin of all animals, including human beings, is due to slow mutations occurring spontaneously throughout history. This is evident by the discovery of animal remains deposited in successive layers of sediment that became fossilized through time. The sedimentary layers of fossils exhibit a slow but steady sequence of animal remains starting from the most primitive and least sophisticated up to the very advanced specialized animals we know today. Darwin was speculating about the origin of the physical bodies of humans. He paid no attention to the spiritual nature of humans, which turns out to be much more important than our bodily existence.

The theory of evolution holds that there is no evidence of intelligence operating as these changes develop. They are simply random mutations that either help the animal survive and flourish or are harmful and cause the animal to perish without producing offspring that carry these same harmful mutations. According to Darwin, there is certainly no evidence for creation. To him, the God who supposedly created animals is actually a myth generated by primitive cultures that did not understand science as well as we do today. Evolution has become the primary mode of understanding about how humans came into existence and is encouraged in almost every culture (and school) in the Western world.

Rebuttal by Creationism

On the other hand, creationists argue that God created the entire world from nothing, both the physical world of plants and animals and the spiritual world of angels and humans. Human beings have a spiritual side as well as a physical side. God is totally spiritual and uncreated. He is not composed of mass or matter like we are, and He is not subjected to the laws of nature. God is pure Spirit. He is not measured by length, breath, depth or pinpointed at some point in time as we are.

God is also unchanging, unlike the physical universe. He is so far different from us humans that He would have to offer a revelation to teach us about Himself. And He did give that revelation in the course of human history. His revelation reveals that He operates on love and that He is not a single person but three divine Persons in one nature. Each Person of the Trinity loves Himself and loves the other Persons equally. It was like this for all eternity before God created the world. The world, the entire universe, both the physical part and the spiritual part, and all the natural laws that govern the universe are not things that exist in their own right. Their existence depends on the creative power of God, who for His own reason, created the entire universe.

We can observe the physical universe and, if we are smart enough, we can understand it in great depth. We are unable to see the spiritual world, but it is there. We can recognize its existence if we learn to interpret symbols and signs that point to it. The spiritual world is the domain of angels and devils. God operates more directly through the spiritual world than He does through the physical world. How do I know this? Well, God did give a revelation about that. Indeed, He would have to reveal the spiritual world to us because none of us can see it.

God’s Revelation

His revelation to the human race began in the Garden of Eden where He used to visit Adam and Eve daily and converse with them after He created them (Genesis 2:15-16). This directly contradicts Darwin’s theory that humans slowly learned the skills of becoming human as they evolved from brute animals. No!

God’s revelation shows that the first two humans were as intelligent as any of us are today. God created them from the dust of the earth (read that as the ninety-two elements of which every material thing in the universe is made). If scientists say that man evolved from apes – but are not apes also made from the same ninety-two elements that dust is composed of? No matter how God accomplished the task, He did indeed create man and everything else in the entire universe.

But when He created man, He added a special step: He breathed a spirit into the first man (Genesis 2:7). This is the critical point of origin for human beings. Adam’s physical body, infused with a spirit from God, became the first human being. Being endowed with a spirit is what made Adam a human being with free will and made in the image of the God who created him.

No animal has ever built a shrine or temple to honor the God who created him, but all humans, even in the most primitive cultures, display some recognition of who their creator might be. All human cultures have developed language. All human beings fashion some form of clothing for themselves. All human beings usually cook their food. No animal does any of these things.

God took a rib from Adam and fashioned it into Eve to be a helpmate for Adam (Genesis 2:21), thereby showing that Eve has the exact same origin as Adam. The two of them are the same flesh, as Adam exclaimed: “This is now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone” (Genesis 2:23). God asked Adam to name all the animals (Genesis 2:19). This shows that God gave Adam dominion over all the animals. God actually told Adam to rule over any living creature that crawls on the face of the face of the Earth (Genesis 1:26).

First Humans Misled by Lucifer

The angel Lucifer was created at the beginning of creation to serve God as the bright morning star illumining the minds of others about God because no physical being can understand very much about God on their own. But Lucifer rejected that mission from the beginning. He thought he could be a rival to God, and so he revolted. The results of Lucifer’s revolt and God’s punishment play out when Lucifer dared to take the form of a living creature crawling on earth to tempt Eve (Genesis 3:1). He thereby placed himself directly under the dominion of Adam, whose distant descendant will indeed take dominion over Lucifer and punish him.

Lucifer asked Eve about what God commanded concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. She said that she and her husband should not eat the fruit of that tree. If they did, they would surely die. Lucifer told her, “You shall not surely die. God knows very well that if you eat of that tree you will become like God knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).

This bold lie confirmed the downfall of Lucifer. He was no longer the bright morning star at the beginning of creation. His defiance of God has made Lucifer the source of darkness, the father of all lies as Jesus puts it (John 8:44). In God’s good time, a descendant of the woman, clothed in the same flesh as the first two humans, was to replace Lucifer as the bright morning star. He would become King and Lord of the entire human race and King and Lord of heaven ruling over all angels and saints.

Their Punishment

After Adam and Eve offended God by doing exactly what He had commanded them not to do, God punished them by removing some of the blessings He bestowed upon them when He created them and all their descendants. They were then, because of their disobedience, subject to death (Genesis 3:19). They would then have to labor to find shelter and food, and they would need to struggle against the evil influence of Lucifer and his brood of devils.

They wanted to be like God and to know good and evil. From that point on, they and all their progeny would have first-hand experience of good and evil, both the evil that came to them from the evil influence of others and the evil that flowed from their own hearts as they were influenced by Lucifer and offended others. They would now have to spend their whole lives in a mortal struggle between good and evil.

God put humans in conflict with Lucifer, but we, through the leadership of Jesus, can defeat the wickedness of Lucifer. God, through the human nature of Jesus, will punish Lucifer for his defiance of God. Some humans who chose to serve God will inherit heaven and occupy positions similar to those vacated by one third of the angels who chose to side with Lucifer. Those human who choose not to serve God will be punished along with Lucifer and his brood of devils.

Holy Scripture

These stories about our first parents came from early folklore generated by Adan and Eve and their offspring through the ages.  Hundreds of years later when God appointed Moses to have Hebrew scribes write the Torah, which is the beginning of God’s inspired revelation to all humans, God told Moses to have the scribes write only certain folklore revealed by God that had not been corrupted through the ages. Moses was to incorporate that into the first book of the Torah (Genesis) and add to that the other four books God told Moses to write (Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy).

Genesis records that the descendants of Adam and Eve soon began building cities. Cain’s grandson started the construction of the first city. So this human race that descended from Adam and Eve is significantly different from the world of animals. Our ancestors were indeed human. None of them could be classified as proto-humans or intermediate species between humans and primates because God, by breathing a spirit of life into the first man, had a direct hand in the origin of the human race.

It should be noted that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all accept Moses as a true prophet. The Torah became an integral part of the revelation accepted as authentic by more than half of the human population today and has been accepted as such for around four thousand years.  The theory of Evolution has been around for only 161 years and is already being questioned by scientific discoveries in the field of microbiology.


This book Evolution: The Human Story is a fine study of what we are learning about prehistoric animals that resemble human beings but are not actually human beings. I don’t know why so many authors either ignore God or argue that God does not exist. It would be much more edifying for our culture if these authors credited God for what He has done and try to encourage our fellow humans to learn how to love God and obey Him as He commands all of us to do. If all humans actually believed God and tried to obey Him, we would have exponentially less crime and violence in our world. But if these authors continue to teach that God does not exist and that humans are simply highly-evolved apes, what should we expect from apes trying to find their place in this world that knows no God and no valid reason for their existence.

We humans are not highly-evolved primates. We, unlike every other animal on the planet, are created in the very “image and likeness” of God. We are sovereign, spiritual persons with free will. No animal can match what we are. No animal, no matter how highly-evolved it is, has the mental capacity to even understand what those claims mean.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

38 thoughts on “A Christian Rebuttal to Darwinian Evolution”

  1. Hello John and Christopher,

    I think I should say something in my own defense. My article actually was a rebuttal to the claims Dr. Alice Roberts made in her book “Evolution: The Human Story.” I see now that I should not have argued against the whole field of Darwin and his theory of evolution. That’s what tripped me up, and I wound up with too many people refuting me and criticizing me. Actually neither I nor most of my intended audience are deeply knowledgeable about science or about the actual life and thoughts of Darwin. But we all are exposed to our culture’s opinion about evolution. That’s the mental image I have of Darwinian Evolution. And I certainly would like to try to refute that image.

    But what I was really refuting was Dr. Robert’s portraying in her book the early primates, proto-humans and three species of the genus Homo, but not yet Homo sapiens, as the human ancestry she claims goes back 10,000 years, page after page of what look to me like a procession of monkeys and apes. That’s what I was arguing against. That’s not my ancestry, and I wouldn’t want my friends and loved ones thinking that’s their ancestry.

    I learned in my youth that God created man and the whole universe. I believe it then, and I still believe it. So I tried my best to present a contrary argument, one that is more in harmony with Jesus Christ and the teaching of his church.

    1. Hi Maurice,

      You did not refute anything Alice Roberts wrote in her book at all; you merely disagreed with it. I have no problem with your beliefs, and neither does the Catholic Church, but it does not endorse them. Marvellously, your ancestry does indeed include “page after page of […] a procession of monkeys and apes.” So does mine, and that of your friends and loved ones. It also includes an even longer procession of fish.

      I commend your attempt to provide a contrary argument, and fully support your right to your beliefs. My beliefs, on the the hand, are not only completely different, but also much closer to the current thinking of the Catholic Church.

      I also commend your honesty in admitting that neither you nor your intended audience know much about evolution, but I do wonder how you thought you could demonstrate it to be incorrect in any respect without understanding it in the first place.

  2. Hello John,

    Thank you for another comment on my article. You are putting me through the loops making sure I understand what I am writing about. That’s all right. I appreciate the opportunity to verify my article. It’s a challenge.

    I don’t agree that incest was immoral for Adams children because, if God really wanted the offspring of Adam to increase and multiply, there was no other way to permit it to happen. This is my own private opinion because, like scientists, I used my intellect and common sense to come to that conclusion. But since you accuse me of not having other sources, particularly Catholic teaching, to back me up, I searched The Internet. I offer the following two links for your consideration:

    This first link is to Creation Moments. Its title is “Did Adam and Eve’s Children Practice Incest?
    This second link is to Catholic Answers. Its title is “Why Incest in Genesis was OK.” https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-incest-in-genesis-was-ok.
    So I do have Church sources to back up my opinions. As to inbreeding between humans and other species goes, I was taught in high school that different species do not interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I think this was the rational way scientists cataloged the various species, but it might not be the way God divided the various animals he created. You pointed out that European people have 2% Neanderthal DNA while humans from Africa do not have Neanderthal DNA. I think you conclude too much from this detail because I see from The Internet that we share about half our DNA with bananas.

    This third link is to The Naked Scientist. Its title is “Misconception: We Share Half Our DNA with Bananas.” https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/mythconception-we-share-half-our-dna-bananas.

    I think if Neanderthal DNA shows up in the human genome, so what? We share half our DNA with bananas. I would leave it up to the scientists to explain. I think those details do not refute God’s revelation that he did, indeed, create man in his own image and likeness.

    I hope this helps in clarifying my position on these matters.

    1. Maurice, I will try to be as charitable in my response as I can be. “Catholic Answers” is NOT an official source of the church magisterium of ANY sort! If you don’t know that already, and really are Catholic, I find it astounding. Beyond astounding is your oblivious understanding of DNA which is, well, completely bananas. The only way your perceived “rebuttal” could even remotely be construed as something approaching convincing is if your knowledge of science is as utterly clueless as you’ve now fully clarified it to be. Suffice it to say, you are in total denial of basic realities of science and void of any theological understanding in order to maintain a wholly pointless conclusion that is not the least bit sustainable, on any level, intellectually. When you fail to support an assertion both at the theological AND scientific levels, the only thing left is your own personal feelings that, well, you’re entitled to. But there are better arguments to be had for believing in the tooth fairy than your rationale for evolution applying to everything EXCEPT modern humans who aren’t related to Neanderthals, according to you, because we have more in common with bananas. (Yeah – that’s exactly what your argument is!). Unbelievable.

    2. Mr. Williams I had vowed not to respond to your article, so this comment is not directed to you but to others who may read your comment and don’t know anything about molecular biology.

      It is not the fraction of genes that are similar that is relevant to the phylogenetic tree but what these genes do. There are certain basic biochemical processes–respiration, metabolism–which are common to all varieties of life. There are other processes that are not similar.

      So the fact (if it be true) that 30% of our genes are similar to that of banana plants does not mean we are 30% like a banana. The fact that 60% of our genes are similar to those of a fruit fly does not mean that we are 60% like a fruit fly. It means that 60% of our biochemical processes are similar.

      On the other hand similar genes for similar functions are relevant. There is a gene, FOXP2, for language (there’s a representation of it on the featured image for your article). This gene is shared by Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. So both homo Sapiens and Neanderthals possessed a gene for language. And whether Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are different species in the sense that they did not interbreed, is of course not established.

      I hope this will clear this matter up for those who read your comment and are confused by it.

    3. Wrong Bob. DNA sequences are 60% identical (conserved or homologous) between human and fruit fly genes. If this were not true, anti-bodies would not cross react between species, but they do more often than not. You are correct that protein function may differ between species, but then make the mistake to claim FOXP2 functions exclusively for language. Your biggest mistake was to ignore John’s distress without comment. Thank God for Maurice’s defense of our faith. The point,of course, was the Lord would not be expected to reinvent new and unique proteins for each animal.
      We’ll pray for you John.

    4. Christopher, as I said in a note on my article, I don’t respond directly to YEC and Geocentrists. However, for the benefit of those who read this and don’t know about molecular biology, here’s the reasoning about FOXP2: studies have shown that humans with disordered/deficient FOXP2 have language problems; primates other than Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals don’t have this same FOXP2 gene. And for the benefit of readers who may misintepret your comment, I agree with your statement that 60% of the genes between Homo Sapiens and the fruit fly are homologous. God, in his mysterious way, directed evolution such that common biochemical functions are governed by common molecular biology. This will be my last comment on this post.

    1. Thanks for the prayers, Christopher. Not sure what my distress is. More like dismay at the depths of denial people will go through to make up their own science and theology as a way to avoid dealing with realities like subjective morality regarding incest and genetic evidence of interbreeding between European modern humans and Neanderthals. And the only “faith” Maurice is attempting to defend is his own make-believe one. Certainly nothing he says has anything to do with Catholicism.

  3. Any person who has a wristwatch on their hand would assume there is a “Creator” of that watch. Or a PC on their desk. Again, no one would argue that there is a “creator.” Why then is it not logical to assume there is a “Creator”–God–for something with the complexity, variety, order, functionality–even beauty–found in the world and all that is within it? Who is crazier? The person that believes that the world ‘just’ evolved by a series of random events–or–the person that believes the world was “created” with all the complexity that we find. Look in someone’s eye. Just that human organ alone is so complex, but functional, that it could not logically or reasonably have evolved by random events all by itself. Functionality implies order. Order implies design. Design implies intelligence. Intelligence implies a “creator”–God. Saint Anselm, the father of modern scholasticism said, “Lord, let me not understand so that I may believe. Let me believe, so that I may understand.”

    1. Hi Falcon,

      Your ideas and opinions are entirely understandable, and, as I said to Maurice, nobody should deny you your right to them. My point (below) is that your opinions are in no way a rebuttal of the theory of evolution, nor do they reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church.

      I say ‘Catholic’ specifically and advisedly, as the Catholic Church has a universal, coherent and maintained understanding of the creativity of God that is not found among the separated brethren, and to be fair, neither Maurice nor yourself state that you are Catholic. My apologies if I have claimed a false allegiance that you do not in fact obtain.

    2. Your inability to imagine how something evolved is not an argument against it having evolved.

      Incredulity is not an argument.

  4. Hi Maurice,

    Thank you for your article. I am a Catholic and have been a teacher of evolutionary biology for over 40 years. I was interested in your post because of the word ‘rebuttal’ in the title. I wondered how you were going to provide evidence for the failure of the theory of evolution, from a Christian, or indeed any other perspective.

    But as it turns out, you do not rebut the theory of evolution. In fact, in suggesting that what sets human apart from other animals is not only their physical but their spiritual characteristics, you augment Alice Roberts’ ideas, and perhaps she would not disagree. This is fine, as it aligns very well with the current understanding of Catholic theology, as expressed in various papal and other pronouncements from Humanae Vitae to the present day.

    However, unless I mistake, you go on to express a belief in a more or less literal interpretation of at least parts of the book of Genesis. Such is your prerogative and let no one deny it you. However, to imply that your personal belief either constitutes a rebuttal of the theory of evolution, or expresses the understanding of the Catholic Church, is transparently mistaken.

    Finally, I have to say it’s not obvious to me that you are familiar with Darwin or his works. Your characterisation of him is somewhat wide of the mark.

    1. Hello Hugh.

      Thanks for reading my article and commenting on it. Congratulations for your career in teaching Biology. I think it is a wonderful thing to teach young people the truth.
      I have been speaking English all my life and thought, by now, I would understand it. Your objection to the word rebuttal threw me for a loop. Just to be sure I understood it, I googled “rebuttal” and see that I did understand the word. My rebuttal was against the claims of Dr. Roberts that humans descended from a long line of primates and proto-humans. I cited Scripture to show that God made a revelation claiming he created humans and humans did not start out as brutish animals but seemed as intelligent as humans are today.

      You also cited Humanae Vitae against me, so I google Humamae Vitae. Humamae Vitae is mainly about conception, but it does affirm that God did indeed create man in his own image and likeness. I also googled the Magisterium to see if my personal opinion is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium and found, among other links, an article about Pope Francis published by U.S. News on October, 2014 that quotes Pope Francis as saying: “Catholics have long accepted that the creation story as written in the book of Genesis in the Bible can stand along the scientific theory of evolution and that the two are not mutually exclusive.”

      So I think my rebuttal is authentic and my position is not in opposition to Church teaching. I enjoy discussing these things because I think the noblest task for we humans is to understand and share with others the absolute truth, and I am not offended if people disagree with me.

  5. I find it interesting that the pure creationists (biblical literalists) seem strongly wedded to their positions regardless of developments in various branches of science relating to biology and history and yet scientists in these areas are willing to question in seeking answers. Einstein, essentially a secular Jewish deist, stated that “God does not play dice with the universe”, meaning that there are rules by which the universe functions. There seems little to contradict evolution in biblical accounts when taking into consideration the understanding of the world at the time. In fact, the Jews were a tribal people, and acted and believed accordingly, up to the time of David. At the same time, Egypt, China and present day Iran were quite advanced in comparison. As time went by, knowledge added more pieces to the puzzle until the “big bang” theory provided some sort of unity of the belief in the origin of the universe. Science simply says they don’t know how it came to be and religion simply says they don’t know the process but according to Thomasin logic, God was the origin in some manner. Neither belief is self contradictory.
    Considering that we all acknowledge we are here (“I think, therefor I am”; Descartes) it would seem more profitable to our species to move on to more consequential matters in the absence of new evidence to support any individually held theories.

    1. Since you seem to value Einstein so much, perhaps he had more to say about how Jesus turned water into wine, or how He walked on water, or how He calmed the seas…etc? Nothing in there to contradict the rules of the universe? I’d side with eye witnesses over individually held theories.

    2. Christopher: Changing the subject/argument is the original method of saying there is no refuting the proposition so let’s go on to something irrelevant to the subject at hand. It ill serves your position.

  6. What you write isn’t as bad as what protestant fundamentalists write; but it is enough intellectually to discredit believers. No wonder educated young people are leaving the church in droves! (Before you write anymore, I would suggest that you audit a course in basic geology, if nothing more.)

  7. Maurice, I don’t find anything you said offensive, but I do find it unconvincing. You left out all references to incest, which would have been required under your belief system. Was mating with parents and siblings ok for a while? And then, all of a sudden, not?
    The fact that multiple species of humans lived at the same time and interbred with each other complicates your argument even further. God created modern humans, separately, out of nothing, to be special and different and then let them interbreed with other non-human species? Their offspring were half modern human and half not human? Did they have half a soul? Those of us with European ancestry derive 2% of our DNA from Neanderthals. Are we therefore only 98% human? (I will throw you a lifeline. You can state, metaphorically, humans –like everything else– were created from matter and think of that matter as being like a “dust.” But that would still leave room. for Darwinian evolution.)
    Death rituals that include drawings, items that might have had religious significance and signs of ritualistic worship are very different from simple processing of dead termites in a specific place. They show reverence, as oppose to a mere formula for disposing of dead carcasses. Death rituals are just one of four characteristics used to characterize whether a species is human. To date, there are at least six of such species, including modern humans, who meet the four criteria.
    There was a time I believed very similarly to you. I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not but the church teaches that science and religion co-exist in complete harmony. Once I realized that faith did not require literal belief in inspired sacred texts, reconciling the two became much more logical.

    1. Good grief, apparently you are unaware that 60% of genes are conserved between humans and fruit flies?

    2. “does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose, and another for an ignoble one?”

    3. Hello John,

      Thank you for your further comments. I will try to answer these as best I can. You know that I am convinced that God created humans special when he breathed a spirit into them, and he told them to increase and multiply. How could they multiply if they did not start out marrying siblings? The prohibition against incest came later, but it was not in place when God created the first humans.

      Scientist in their effort to understand nature has catalogued all the existing animals into logical groups. What constitutes a species is part of what they did. It makes sense to humans, but it probably does not coincide with what God had in mind when he created all the different animals. So if we find the tenets of science not agreeing with God has revealed, I think, his revelation carries more weight, and science should re-examine their theories so as not to seem contradictory with God’s revelation.

      It might surprise you to hear that I think evolution seems as the logical way God created all living animals from the dust of the earth. What I do not accept is the arguments of some that evolution provides contradiction to what God revealed.

      As far as death rituals go, there is no comparison between the way humans prepare their departed for the next life and the way animals deal with their dead. The Egyptians, for example, went to fantastic extremes to construct tombs for their departed rulers. Just about all societies of humans designated a class of individuals: medicine men, shamans, priests etc. to help others to prepare for death, and, I think, they all expected some sort of continued existence after death.

      Hey John, I am Catholic, and I know that the Catholic faith does require belief in what Jesus taught as true. I do not recommend quibbling about “literal belief in inspired texts” because, if Genesis is God’s revelation that God did create the world and everything in it, it would be ill-advised not to believe it.

  8. Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one deceives you…If the Lord had not shortened those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect whom he chose, he did shorten the days.”

    1. Dude, you do understand that DNA and genes are NOT the same thing? DNA are a component of genes that connect us to our ancestry. Modern humans from Europe derive about 2% of their DNA from Neanderthals. Modern humans from Africa do not. Ergo, we know where, why and how. we got them.

    2. You do know that DNA are a component of genes and not the same thing as genes, right? DNA are what links us to our ancestral history. Modern humans from Europe derive 2% of their genes from Neanderthals. Modern humans from Africa do not. Ergo, we know how, where and why we have them.

  9. Maurice,

    I don’t the Church requires you to be so closely wedded to a literal reading of Genesis. It was written in a prescientific, patriarchal culture. The account bears similarities to creation stories from other Fertile Crescent cultures, some much older. In a prescientific age people didn’t ask probing questions (such as, Why is the story in Genesis 2 different from Genesis 1? Where did Cain’s wife come from?). Not even Jesus questioned the accepted order of creation. In getting his message across he used the prevailing heliocentric view (Mark 13:25). He was working in a patriarchal tradition which had an all-male priestood (women were allowed only in the outermost part of the Temple). He made no attempt to speak against subjugation of women or slavery. Nor did he question the prevalent belief that mental illness was caused by demons.

    As for how we would know right and wrong without God, an atheist has a handy answer: ethics is a product of evolution, natural selection. Tribes which developed the “Golden Rule” stayed together and progressed, while those which didn’t, fell apart (or probably never got together in the first place). At times this zigzagged into some pretty unfair rules, but you could say the same about rules handed down by a God. (One could prevent a man from entering the Temple by crushing his testicles or cutting off his penis. Deut 23:1. Does that sound fair?)

    1. Hello Captcrisis,

      Thank you for your comment on my article. It’s nice to exchange ideas with someone that, perhaps, sees things differently than I do. It helps me to clarify my own perception of what is true.

      I think the Church requires me to accept their magisterial teaching concerning what Christ taught, and I think my article is in agreement with magisterial teaching. Your first paragraph shows a bias in almost everything you say. For example, there are not two contradictory stories of creation in Genesis. They are two stories that supplement each other. Also Genesis clearly states that Adam lived to be 930 years and had other children (Gen. 5: 4).

      Your comments about the all-male priesthood and the subjugation of woman are too prejudicial for my taste. God, being God, is free to choose what positions he wants for men and for women. Actually, no human being has a closer relationship with God than Mary. She has already been elevated to be Queen above all Angels as well as Queen above all men.

      You mention that Jesus did not question the prevalent belief that mental illness was cause by demons. You didn’t mention what your belief is, but, for the record, I do accept the existence of demons, and I think their influence is behind many of the crazy things people do.

      Your comment that an atheist can know right and wrong through ethics misses the true identification of evil. There are many societies that value attitudes that those who try to follow God know that God frowns on. A good example is our current acceptance of abortion. Seventy some years ago, the Nazis were killing Jews and nothing but war could stop them. And as for “tribes who got together and progressed,” wars have always plagued humans all through history.

      I see you put a spin on Deut. 23: 1. The verse reads: “No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the Lords people.” I think this verse simply prohibits anyone who has had his genitals mutilated from being included among the Lord’s people. It does not encourage deliberately mutilating someone to prevent inclusion. That would be very unethical. In a secular world, one might get away with something like this, but in a world ruled by God, nobody gets away with anything.

      This points out, I think, the big difference between ethics and religion.

    2. Maurice, you have just made the case for “subjective morality,” which is diametrically contrary to what the church teaches. If God considers incest immoral, it always was and always will be immoral. There is no “moral then, immoral now.” Do you have a church source to cite that makes the case that incest was moral up until a certain point in history? Or did you make that up on your own? I have never seen or heard of any church teaching or theory that incest was ever morally unobjectionable.
      You still do not answer the question of interbreeding between modern humans and other species. Does the fact that European descendants derive 2% of their DNA from Neanderthals make us less human than pure modern humans from Africa who do not have Neanderthal DNA? Were offspring of those marriages only half human, or not? Did they have whole souls or partial souls?
      You can choose to interpret scripture in a way that is consistent with science or one that is inconsistent. You have a right to choose the latter. We have the right to believe in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, candyman and anything else we want. But that doesn’t make the argument rational or theologically or scientifically supportable. All of your arguments fail from a scientific perspective and none of them are supported theologically. The only sense in which they are a “rebuttal” to evolution is your own personal belief that chooses to interpret a part of scripture in a way that is unsupported scientifically and completely unnecessary from a faith perspective.

  10. Evolutionary theory has no need to account for spirituality and vice versa. Nor does spirituality provide answers for things evolutionary theory can’t explain. Or vice versa.

  11. This is the kind of eye-rolling theorizing that makes Christians who accept the realities of science cringe. The author makes no mention of a couple of big problems with it. For one, we know through DNA modeling that modern humans carry Neanderthal and Java men genes through intermarriage of the species. Were Neanderthals and Java men also miraculously created by their own Adams and Eves and infused with souls? Or is it possible that children of such inter-matches had one parent with a soul and one parent without? (Evidence has been found for both species, by the way, that they had death rituals and held religious beliefs.) And you can’t insist there was a literal one Adam, one Eve, without making the case for subjective morality. For if that’s true, we are all descendants of highly incestuous origins. The author also makes a gross error commonly made by those with a poor understanding of biology. Humans did not “evolve from apes,” humans and apes shared a common ancestor from which apes and humans and other primates evolved. We can speculate on whether a moment occurred where souls were infused to all hominids (creating an awkward situation where children with souls would have been born to parents without) or perhaps at a much earlier stage of evolution that continued to evolve along with humans. But there is neither biological nor anthropological evidence to support the notion that fully evolved humans just suddenly appeared one day out of nowhere.

    1. “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his father’s glory with the holy angels.”

    2. We are free to believe that Adam and Eve did exist (I do).
      And certainly the Church teaches that God created everything out of nothing,, that is why he is omnipotent. You may have heard the latin term “creatio ex niliho”. If you want to believe that God is limited , thats your problem. And BTW , it was a catholic priest George Lemaitre who proposed the “big bang” theory,, which is essentially ‘creation out of nothing’. — I was an engineering major.

    3. Hello John.

      Thank you for your comment on my article. I’m new on this website and I appreciate someone reading my article and taking it seriously. I’m surprised you didn’t believe me. This is a Christian website, and I did not expect that. But you threw a challenge to me, and I owe you an answer. So here goes.

      God stated clearly in Genesis that he created everything that exists including man. He created man from the dust of the earth. Your points about DNA and intermarriage between species are details about what is the dust. God did not specify the details; he merely said the dust of the earth. That’s clear enough for me.

      Elephants, magpies and chimpanzees also show some reverence for their dead. And bees, ants and termites place there dead in special chambers in their hives, but I don’t think anyone argues that those animals are proto-human.

      Doesn’t the theory of evolution posit that all living creature on earth evolved from previously existing more primitive creatures? It is not the detail of how humans evolved from lower life forms. No matter how Adam’s body evolved from dust, God clearly revealed that he breathed a “spirit” into Adam.

      God clearly revealed that humans are moral creatures, and we must obey God. I think this final point is the big barrier between science and religion. If there are no moral constraints placed on humans, we would have chaos in the world. I think we do see a lot of chaos in the world, but if all humans knew that God created them and did placed moral constraints on them and they all obeyed God, this present world would be close to paradise.

      I hope I did not offend you by sticking to my guns, but I think two intelligent men should be able to exchange differences in opinion without hurt feelings.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign Up for the Catholic Stand Newsletter!

%d bloggers like this: