With Real Intent

The Bible underneath it

Evolution vs. Literal Genesis

It refutes literalism and the design argument. Not theism. Name the target precisely.

Say this first, it matters

The Catholic Church accepts evolution. So do most mainline Protestant seminaries and many believing scientists. John Paul II's 1996 message

The sharp conflict is with young-earth literalism and with a literal Adam and Eve as sole ancestors with no death before the Fall. Name the target precisely and you will be taken seriously.

The status of the science

The National Academy of Sciences: evolution is "one of these well-established explanations," among "the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have," on par with germ theory. Source

Genetics is the strongest evidence, because it is not about fossils

Where it collides with Genesis

For a Latter-day Saint this bites harder than for most Christians, because LDS teaching holds a literal Adam, a literal Fall, and no death before it.

Why the design argument fails

When they say

"It is only a theory." Confuses everyday "theory" with scientific theory. Gravity and germs are theories too. Source

"Irreducible complexity." A federal court examined this in detail and ruled intelligent design "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005

"Evolution cannot explain how life started." Correct, and concede it cleanly. Abiogenesis is a separate open question. Rejecting evolution for not answering a different question is a category error.

This page is part of a 76-topic library. Every claim links to its source, most of them the Church’s own. Read it on the full site or browse every topic.