7 January 2020 | St. Mark the Evangelist
In today's contemporary Catholicism the Theory of Evolution has been accepted wholesale and now taught in Catholic schools as the true history of the universe, often resulting in the destruction of the faith of children. Many Catholics try to confound God and evolution together, so as essentially to make it that God brought the universe into order and set its laws, and then for the next several billions seemingly abandoned His creation to natural processes, perhaps returning to it to check it was still working all right, very much like when one is cooking a stew and frequently checking on it, but in the main just leaving it to itself.
This idea of God, by the way, is a sub-belief of a philosophical position called Deism: the notion that God essentially just abandoned us after bringing us into existence. This notion was popularised by Rene Decartes, a French philosopher who taught that the world essentially continued not so much by God's constant Providence, but by natural processes. Decartes couldn't explain the creation of the universe without God, and so he had it that God brought the creation into being and then, for all intents and purposes, sodded off and left us to our own devices. Blaise Pascal said of Decartes and his theory:
I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy, Descartes did his best to dispense with God. But Descartes could not avoid prodding God to set the world in motion with a snap of His lordly fingers; after that, he had no more use for God.
This is Deism, and is also the basis of so-called Theistic Evolution. God snaps His fingers, and then He is seen no more.
It may, therefore, come as a shock to many that the Catholic Church has long taught that the history of Creation and the early world as written in Genesis is the true history of the world. The Fathers of the Church all taught that Genesis recorded a true history of the world, though many today would scoff at these venerable men of old as being ignorant of science; such people usually have never read the Fathers' writings on creation, since they would know that the Fathers were very scientific in their views, and often refuted popular philosophical (or scientific) theories of their day, like the eternity of the earth, the evolution of mankind, and also the generation of men from the stars.
Beginning in the days when I was an Anglican, I became more and more sceptical of evolution the more I read about it or heard scientists trying to explain it. In fact, when I realised that the Big Bang Theory claimed that the universe randomly, without any Divine intervention of any kind, exploded out of nothing, I couldn't help wondering: how can nothing create something? Well, it can't. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
But, apparently, according to some modern scientists, nothing can produce something, because they define nothing as "an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles", to quote Wikipedia. So, their nothing is actually something, which then makes it not nothing.
Since then, I have steadily progressed to the point now that I can safely say, whole-heartedly and without any reserve, that: I do not accept, either in whole or in part, the Theory of Evolution. Not only that, but with the Fathers, I accept that the Book of Genesis contains the true history of the world.  One factor of this is the principle of economy, which Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph.D, kindly teaches us about in his article The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution; which same principle states: An explanation of any phenomenon is to be regarded as better and truer in which the minimum number of factors, the fewer steps in the process, and more immediate causes are included. (Princ. 292A continued). Thus, based upon this principle, the Event of Creation (as we may call it), as recorded in Genesis, because it requires fewer steps and more immediate causes, is to be regarded as better and truer than the convolutedness and complexity of the Theory of Evolution. Couple that with the numerous times scientists have faked evidence trying to prove human evolution, and well, it leaves much to be desired.
Besides that, when Genesis relates that giants existed in the early days of history, and then we see images of human skeletons reaching nigh 20 feet or more, amongst other things (like the discovery of Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea Crossing) it becomes hard to refute Genesis. And the question comes up: If Genesis is right on this, then what else is it right on? The Creation of the world perhaps? Whether these giants were the offspring of angels and women known as Nephilim, or whether the generality of early humans were of gigantic stature, is up for debate.
Another doctrine that we must remember is one called Uniformitarianism. It is also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity, and states that the processes of nature today are the same as they have always been, viz, they are uniform. And this concept is, unsurprisingly, not new. St. Peter himself spoke of this uniformity when he wrote of those who, in the latter days, would scoff at the notion of Creation, when he said:
Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men. [2 Peter 3:3-7; emphasis mine]
The Prince of the Apostles makes it quite clear that what is today, is certainly not of yesterday nor of tomorrow. The Antediluvian world is now gone, having perished when the Deluge came and the world will end when it is burnt with fire at the Last Judgment. Thus, there is no uniformity in the world.
I could continue for some time elaborating my thoughts and opinions on this subject, but I think it best to end here, for the sake of brevity. Needless to say, we must be careful about accepting everything told to us by men in white lab coats with titles and degrees as long as one's arm. As for myself, whenever I have a theological question, and I pray about it, the Good Lord always points me to one source: the Church. I have, as yet, never not found an answer from the Church. And to the Church I would encourage my readers to turn. If one is truly seeking the truth, then he will be pointed to the only depository of truth on earth: the Catholic Church.
Links to the website www.6000years.org is not an endorsement of everything stated on this site. I present its articles as of interest that best present proof of Genesis. I certainly do not endorse the Protestant theology presented on the site linked to.
 - These three examples of ancient philosophical (or scientific) theories of the Greeks are today espoused by "modern science". As to the first: Some scientists, frustrated by their inability to explain how the universe could come into being randomly and without God, have devolved either to positing the eternity of the world, or an infinite regression of universes. Both are attempts by the same to escape their having to explain the origin of the universe without a cause. As to the second: Anaximander was a Greek philosopher who posited evolution, which is now elaborated and worked upon by the men of science of our day. As to the third: Some profane philosophers taught that men's bodies were generated from the stars, a theory that is truly absurd, but which same theory is still taught by our so-called men of science.
 - It has long been my belief, and which belief I think proven when true evidence is presented, that the history of the world we are commonly taught in schools is not the true history, but rather a revisionist history from which anything fabulous is removed. If the history of the world as presented by the Book of Genesis is true, then what a history! with races of giants (which the Greeks called the Titans), large monstrous beasts which were formerly called dragons (from the Latin draco meaning lizard), or what we now call dinosaurs, living with men, the generality of which were killed during the Deluge and which the remaining after the Deluge, when flesh-meat was permitted for human consumption by God, were hunted for food. It is a history where the ancients, rather than being primitive and ignorant, were far more advanced than modern man, with knowledge of aerodynamics and even electricity. And, indeed, a time when our early ancestors lived to extreme ages, some to nigh 1,000 years.
 - If the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen Angels and human women, then one would need to proceed cautiously with explaining in an orthodox manner how the fallen Angels, being pure spirit and thus possessing no carnal bodies, could beget children with human women. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa, gives us a possible answer. He says: Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man. [I, q.51, 3] It could be posited that the fallen Angels, or demons, took the seed of men and implanted it into the wombs of the women, and working upon the seed, caused monstrous giants to be born of them, assuming, of course, that the Antediluvian men were of the same stature as today. Some think that the early humans were, in generality, of gigantic stature, and over the centuries began to shrink, even as their age was reduced by Divine ordinance. If this latter opinion is true, then by giants we would have to assume that the Nephilim were called thus for their exceptional wickedness, being greater in evil works than the generality of men. However, if we interpret the Canaanites as being properly giants, thus making the Israelites feel as locusts in their sight [Num. 13:33-34], then the theory that the generality of men were giants is disproved.
A popular theory advanced by St. Augustine, and which became standard in the Church, is the Sethite Theory, namely, that the "sons of God" mentioned in Gen. 6 are not Angels (who are called sons of God throughout the Scriptures), but the good and pious sons of Seth, whilst the "daughters of men" are the wicked and impious daughters of Cain. Their unlawful unions bore evil children, who on account of the magnitude of their wickedness, are called giants. Such a theory sounds more plausible than the notion of giants, but it is a theory that I cannot accept, and were St. Augustine before me, I would gently correct the holy Doctor, for, I would say, the Scriptures bear witness that the children of Seth "began to call upon the Name of the Lord", that is, they began to profane the Holy Name: for the Hebrew says chalal, that is, to pollute and profane. The Sacred Volume testifies that to both Seth and Cain were born ungodly and wicked children. Thus, good Doctor, it stands therefore that the sons of Seth could never be called sons of God, for such sons would never profane the Holy Name of their Heavenly Father.
A third theory, less known than the Sethite Theory, interprets the sons of God as kings, and the daughters of men as commoners, and their union bore wicked children. Yet, one would strain to understand how a union betwixt a prince and a common woman would generate specially wicked children. Princes have always taken to bed women considered as of low birth, and their children were neither exceptionally holier nor wickeder than the general people. This theory, thus, I cannot accept either.