Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Now there are many fundamentalists, mostly Protestants and a small minority of them being Catholic, believe that evolution is incompatible with Scripture and Christianity and therefore it is ton be seen as un orthodox. To their worldview, evolution goes against the belief in Adam and Eve as well as the tainted existence of Original Sin, claiming that evolution undermines the faith and promotes a materialistic atheist world view. But I must disagree and ask them this question to those pondering about how evolution fits with the word of God:where exactly does Original Sin comes from? Within the human race. And another question arises: How did it came to be? To me, its no surprise that we humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and because of that, since we are still apes, there is something animalistic hidden within us, despite ourselves being made in God's image, that lead us to temptation and sin. And if we are to truly understand the origins of Original Sin, then evolution, which is the slow, steady change of living organism over the course of time via environmental changes, is the key to that understanding. 

Evolution does not contradict Catholic teaching and if we apply evolution with Adam and Eve, it makes sense. Despite being evolved into God's image, we are still haunted by our animalistic roots that can easily be triggered when we are tempted to commit sin. The seven days of creation are not meant to be interpreted as literal 24 hour days. But the same message from the Catechism still rings true: "Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). That being said, since evolution has been proven scientifically to be the real deal, it’s more likely that God invented evolution and through evolution, God created all life in the universe. And according to Pope Pius XII in the Humani Genesis (1950), evolution is best described in this note: 35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted. 36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. This neither rejects nor endorse a comprehensive belief in evolution and even before the document, the Catholic Church remained staunchly neutral over the topic, especially since the Galileo affairs still haunted their memories. Pope John Paul II, in 1996, stated that evolution of the human body actually happened and the church went from neutrality towards acceptance of evolution. And here's a philosophical touch they added: they stated that the human soul alone is a special creation that did not develop from materialistic means. "In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. ... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact, it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." "Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." Evolution is a scientific fact and in the case of the Catholic faith, it is the seed of creation created by no-one other than the Lord himself, who created an orderly, lively universe. Now in the Human Generis, Pope Puts XII stated that polygenism is incompatible with scripture, insisting that Adam and Eve are the true primordial ancestors of humankind today. Then there is evidence of the volcanic event called the Toba catastrophe, which occurred around 76,000 years ago, as proven by science. Now, in my personal theory, despite the fact that I didn't get a degree in science, I believe it is possible that Adam and Eve were part of a first generation of human beings, but unlike the rest of their fellows, the couple had a divine spark that gave them a soul, which is, again, not made from materialist means, but transmitted by God at the moment the two primordial parents of our race were conceived. Therefore, we can imply that the divine spark somehow affected the genes of these same biblical two during their conception. After their maturation, those genes that were altered would later be passed on to later generations, due to the Original Sin, our hidden animalistic behaviors that we inherited from the primate ancestors of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, tempting the two primordial parents to commit sin and therefore get expelled from Eden. The humans that were born at the same time as Adam and Eve, hence the first generation, lacked a soul and were perhaps slightly less bright compared to our primordial parents, in my opinion, and since they lacked that same divine spark, we may as well not consider them to be our kind of human, most likely because they would have been members of a more primitive subspecies of Homo sapiens compared to our two primordial parents. Those descendants, thanks to intermingling with the rest of the first generation, gave rise of the current human race that lives on today, thanks to something I would like to call the "Adamic gene". By around 76,000 years ago, the Toba catastrophe may have eliminated most of humanity, including all Homo sapiens who did not descend from Adam and Eve and therefore lacked the Adamic gene. The only surviving members of the Homo sapiens species were those who had the Adamic gene, that same essence that should be directly liked to Adam and Eve. And thus, the human beings living today, in my theory, have survived and continue to walk the earth today in the form of civilization thanks to the special creation of the human soul that gave rise to the Adamic gene, hence the Adamic race.

So yes, Evolution is compatible to God's will.
Add a Comment:
buried-legacy Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2018  New Deviant
Very well said I am from a family of faith. But I believe what you are saying. After all as the saying goes Rome wasn't built in a day.
Graeystone Featured By Owner Jul 7, 2018
If Evolution plus God is true then how come Jesus, Who is part of the Godhead, didn't settle the matter because in His All Knowing Nature knew what kind of rift something like this left ambiguous among the believers would cause.
GeneralHelghast Featured By Owner Edited Jul 13, 2018   General Artist
To be far, he would have some ancient, pre-Darwinian concept of evolution, especially since he would have access to Greek philosophy, Jewish theology, and other forms of knowledge. 

The child grew and became strong and filled with wisdom. Luke 2:40

But of course, his major focus was on more spiritual matters.
Graeystone Featured By Owner Jul 13, 2018
Then why did Jesus mention the Natural World from time to time?
GeneralHelghast Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2018   General Artist
He probably made mentions of the natural world to describe the majesty of God's work. Evolution makes sense and make His creation even more wonderous.
Graeystone Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2018
No evolution does not make sense in terms of God's Deeds, Works, and Creation. For one thing Evolution requires billions and billions of years to get where we are today. Before Man became Man, what was God doing during those billions of years?
GeneralHelghast Featured By Owner Jul 27, 2018   General Artist
Inhabiting the planet with countless lifeforms to produce life. It makes sense that evolution occured because we see countless fossils that date back to those billions of years. Plants, for example, were the first to occur on dry land around 470 million years ago, producing oxygen. Another example were insects, which occured about 412 million years ago and, because they had no lungs and instead have a network of tiny tubes called tracheae, they could grow to massive size when the planet is rich with ocygen and shrink when there is little. Certain species die out and perish, but that was a necessary process since God constantly tests lifeforms for their adaptability the same way God tests us. Evolution isn't as incompatible as you think.

Ecclestiastes 3, 16-22
    16 Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness. 17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. 18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. 19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?  22 So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?
Graeystone Featured By Owner Jul 27, 2018
All are from dust - Considering what God made Adam out of. Its a given.
God tests us on our faith, not on how we adapt to an unfriendly environment. What these verses are stating-
1) Our bodies go back to the earth.
2) When we fail a 'test' we might as well be no better than an animal. Thankfully God is a lot more merciful and does want us to repent and be forgiven for our failures.

Also verse 22 separates man from animal. Human can take joy in what they do. Animals do not. Animals are creatures of repetition and instinct. While humans can be repetitive and instinctual, we can also think beyond such things. Contrary to what many think, Adam and Eve were not created 'stupid'. They had the potential to create and perhaps even to build. The Forbidden Tree that they ate from was not 'The Tree Of Knowledge Of Mathematics or Engineering' but 'The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.' Because they became knowledgeable of Evil, any future inventions by man had the capacity to be 'tainted' for evil purposes.
GeneralHelghast Featured By Owner Edited Jul 28, 2018   General Artist
Faith isn't only thing God tests us on. Also, the idea of people literally being made from dust makes me think way too much about Clayface from Batman. Its more likely that the Genesis verse about man being "from the dust in the ground" could more likely be a metaphor to the moment our hominid ancestors started walking upright. Humans didn't magically appear from dirt/dust, otherwise we would be looking like Clayface.

Also, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 both teach different creation stories. In Genesis 1, God makes man in his image after he made all the animals on the sixth "Day" (not a literal day) whereas in Genesis 2, God first created man, puts him in the Garden of Eden, and then creates the animals.

Also, creationism is more like bad theology than good science.………
(1 Reply)
Baron-von-Blau Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
   Based on my understanding, examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

   The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does yom mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

   We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.

   The language of the Genesis account makes it clear, in my view, that all of creation was formed from nothing in six literal 24-hour periods with no time periods occurring between the days. This is evident because the context requires a literal 24-hour period. The description specifically describes the event in a manner that a normal, common-sense reading understands as a literal day: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Genesis 1:5). Further, each sentence in the original language begins with the word “and.” This is good Hebrew grammar and indicates each sentence is built upon the preceding statement, clearly indicating that the days were consecutive and not separated by any period of time. The Genesis account reveals that the Word of God is authoritative and powerful. Most of God’s creative work is done by speaking, another indication of the power and authority of His Word. Let us look at each day of God’s creative work:

All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as St. Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.

Then, in the 1800s, a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community. This was mostly driven by hostility to religion and an effort to re-interpret observations in ways contrary to the Bible and Christian teachings. This caused a rift in the scientific community. One side claimed that only atheism, as well as specific ideas such as an old earth and naturalistic evolution, was compatible with science. The other side, in response, attempted to denounce atheism and any possible old-earth interpretations.

The truth is that both young-earth and old-earth interpretations rely upon certain assumptions. Sincere believers debate the meaning of yom in the creation account because a case can be made on both sides. This does not diminish the importance of what Genesis teaches, regardless of whether or not a person accepts young-earth creationism.

For instance, according to Exodus 20:9-11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. My view, based on my understanding of the Bible and the long-standing beliefs of Christianity, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.

GeneralHelghast Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2018   General Artist
First of all, a literal 24-hour day, based on the notion that the earth was created in 4004 BC (as claimed by the Irish Anglican James Ussher) wouldn't make sense and it ignores billions of years of evolution as well as architecture and evidence of cultures that predate that date, including Gobekli Tepe, which was built around 9500 BC. You're pretty much promoting pseudoscience and pseudo history if you think the world was created in 4004 BC in about six literal 24-hour days.
Add a Comment:

:icongeneralhelghast: More from GeneralHelghast

More from DeviantArt


Submitted on
July 6


1,981 (14 today)
3 (who?)