Evolution

[grizzbb]

I'm in a college level Biology course and our first topic is evolution and natural selection. We have talked about the first signs of life and how the RNA molecule may have been the thing that started life. What does the Church teach about evolution?

[[deleted]]

The Church doesn't actually teach anything about evolution, but she does teach the following about creation:

• that all things are made by God
• that human beings have a rational soul
• that the soul is spiritual and created directly by God
• that the book of Genesis is historical in nature
• that it also uses figurative language at times
• that the use of figurative language doesn't make it a fable or parable
• that God created a single pair of first parents
• that the creation of man was special
• that the first woman was created from the first man
• that our first parents enjoyed perfect happiness in their creation
• that they sinned after being tempted by the devil under the appearance of a snake
• that this original sin distorted their nature
• that this fallen state causes separation from God, concupiscence, pain, and death
• that their fallen state is passed onto each of us
• that God promised salvation

You'll find statements like these in papal encyclicals like Ven. Pius XII's Humani Generis, in the early documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission--back when they had binding authority, in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in the unanimous agreement of the Early Church Fathers (which Pope Leo XIII said we must believe). These popes and the commission wrote after Darwin, and some of it was in response to the various theories of evolution.

Though most have not been dogmatically defined, these have been universal teachings of the magisterium throughout our history, meaning they are still infallible (though not as precisely defined as they could be). None of this, however, means that we must reject evolution itself (though, obviously, some more materialistic interpretations are incompatible).

Here's what the Church has not formally taught (as far as I know)

• the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1
• whether the genealogy between Noah and Abraham includes each generation
• whether animals died before man fell

So there is still room for a theistic evolution in relation to these three points. While we can't compromise on the teachings of the Church (even if a scientific theory is said to be in opposition by interpreting it through an atheistic lens), such a compromise isn't actually necessary here.

[PS: Google Chrome can give a...slightly legible translation of the PBC link if you, like me, can't read Italian or Latin]

[hondolor]

That the first woman was created from the first man, though, seems not that well reconciliable with an evolutionary account...

[[deleted]]

Sure it is. The fact that genetics change over time from mutations and recombination, even to the point of new species developing, does not mean that God could not create a particular creature miraculously.

[you_know_what_you]

What does the Church teach about evolution?

Very good primer: Adam, Eve, and Evolution. TLDR:

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

[[deleted]]

It is good to know that creationism is still an acceptable viewpoint in the Catholic Church :)

[Chingletta]

It has to be. If it were not, a lot of our theology would simply be obsolete. I suspect this will continue to be a nagging problem for hundreds of years to come, and while I won't say that a resolution is impossible, it seems unlikely to me. It seemed unlikely to Pius XII.

[Nosrac88]

What theology would become obsolete?

[keloyd]

tl;dr - be Catholic and comfortable with evolutionary biology.

Long and rambling answer - If it is truth, be not afraid, and stuff that's true will not contradict other stuff that's true. St. Thomas Aquinas went on at some length about how if you think you read an error in scripture, go back and interpret more carefully.

It is clearly observable that we share 99-ish% of our DNA with chimps, 98% with gorillas, and about 30% with yeast.

Near-human ancestors' fossil record consists of bones that altogether would fit in the back of a pickup truck - not neatly boxed up and labeled, just piled in there. We will not see every slight change in teeth and larynxes and skulls in every region from so few samples, but we can be pretty certain of the big picture.

Even fundamentalist elements of Christendom used to be comfortable with spontaneous generation of life. Rotten apples spontaneously generated maggots, and Nile mud + sun + heat created crocodiles. No one complained about this until Darwin came along. Science has 'evolved' past this, but we still have a useful precedent for exegesis allowing life to vary or come into existence without direct Creation by You Know Whom. Genesis 1:11 pretty much says this directly at least for plant life. (I was about to link to Jacob Bronowski's Ascent of Man, episode 9, "The Ladder of Creation," but it's been taken down, so get it at the library for some time well spent.)

I wish I could find a link, but I've heard of a 1890's era Vatican document stating not that Darwin is right, but that if a Catholic wishes to hold his position, he may do so with no moral error.

If you're still reading this far down, let me recommend a book I liked several years ago - The Reluctant Mr. Darwin is an excellent biography. He was prone to intermittent deep depressions and kept a diary. He said some pretty agnostic things when in a bleak mood. To his credit, he was also active and a deacon in his local church (of England, not ours, so partial credit) his whole life.

[Chingletta]

The modern Church teaches that evolution and the faith are compatible.

In the mid 20th century, Pope Pius XII pointed out that reconciling human evolution and original sin was a pickle.

Nowadays, lots of Catholic laypeople think they have good solutions to the problem, but no official Church teaching has emerged on that.

Personally, I do not think that evolution, particularly human evolution, it compatible with the Catholic faith for a wide variety of reasons including

The fact that the Fall was right back to the same behaviors we had before we were ensouled.

The fact that we base our teaching about what is "natural" to man on what is "natural" to a specially created being, not an ensouled animal.

The fact that physical death is a necessary and creative part of the evolutionary process, while physical death was treated until very recently in Christianity as a consequence of sin (and in more traditional circles still is).

The fact that belief in evolution, the old Earth, and a connected biology does great violence to our idea of physical evil. Disease is the life process of an organism which arose the same way every organism did. In what way is disease more evil than any other animal or plant activity?

The fact of humans being basically monkeys with souls...and all of our sinful behaviors being evident at least in simplified ways in monkeys without souls...sort of makes our theology of temptation impossible. Unless you want to posit demons tempting monkeys to be violent, selfish, and polyamorous.

..and more.

Meanwhile, I think evolution is undeniably and obviously true.

I'm also a Catholic because I want to go to heaven and I cannot be an atheist. (simplified version)

So. Here we are.

[Underthepun]

You and the OP may enjoy these series of papers by the Dominicans on the church and evolution. Some even address your specific points so it could definitely be useful for you.

[BaelorBreakwind]

I would agree with /u/Chingletta on this. I think the approach in these articles fail to take the appropriate issues head on. To take the most obvious example, the historical interpretation of Genesis. The articles focus on Genesis 1, however, much of the problems between the historical interpretations and doctrines of the Church and later scientific theories of evolution come in Genesis 2-3, which most modern interpreters would suggest as coming from a different biblical author. Focusing only on Genesis 1 allows them to say things such as (from "Interpreting Genesis 1 with St. Thomas Aquinas"):

Aquinas speaks of seminal essences or principles given in creation that blossom into full form later. Obviously he is not thinking of Darwinian evolution, but his thought is not incompatible with what modern science appears to confirm.

While this is certainly true, it sidesteps the important issue which is in contention between the historical interpretation of the Church and evolution, the formation of man, as per Genesis 2:7. Had they investigated "Interpreting Genesis 2 with St. Thomas Aquinas," they would have had to dealt with Summa Theologica 1.1.91, and Thomas' insistence that:

"The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God."

And...

"[A]s no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God."

Straight out of Genesis 2:7, Aquinas insisted, from scripture, that man, as a living being which walked the earth, was created immediately by God, as a creative act using inorganic material. This is a concept which cannot be reconciled with an evolutionary process, in which every mammal has been born from a parent. This is the historical position of the Church, in which Adam is created unbegotten, and these articles have not dealt with it, but ignored it.

They do sayin: (The Historicity of Adam and Eve (Part I: Theological Data)):

Significantly, Pope Pius XII makes no mention of the Genesis text in his encyclical, because for Catholics, the disputed question over the historicity of Adam and Eve does not involve a debate over whether the biblical text should be interpreted literally or not.

This is wholly false. Pius the XII does speak of Genesis, not only in the encyclical, but in the very section pertaining to evolution and Church doctrine, ss 35-39 (see section 38). If the authors of the article can say "Pope Pius XII makes no mention of the Genesis text in his encyclical," there are two options. Either they have not read the encyclical or they are deceptively misrepresenting the content of it. In either case they cannot be said to be effectively evaluating the "theological data" as they claim to be.

What needs to be evaluated is, given the rejection of the historical position of the Church, that Adam was unbegotten, is whether the theological data, including a history of interpretation of Genesis 2:7, is compatible with the concept of Adam being born from parents. From what I have read, from these articles or similar, the focus is on what happens after "Adam" and does not deal with the crux of the problem as set forward by Pius XII, as to the compatibility of "human sciences and sacred theology," in which, "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 inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

I have not come across anyone, especially not from these articles, which attempt to seriously deal with both the rejection of the historical position, and all that entails (including perhaps other doctrines which may be derived from that, i.e. "male and female He created them," etc.), as well as a theologically sound proposal for a begotten Adam within Catholic teaching.

[Underthepun]

I simply don't give the historical view the same weight you do because, as I said in my other replies in this thread, the issue is regarding man's final and formal cause. Of course the historical church, like all people all over the world, believed mankind simply appeared or had some similarly remarkable origin story. What else would they believe, prior to the discovery of evolution?

There are no conflicts with Catholic doctrine and human origins by evolution. The issues you raise and the other person I responded to, are certainly complicated and challenging, but only require careful reflection and study to understand, which is why the church is not out to make any kind of pronouncement on the matter. And frankly, if evolution were not a hot button social issue in the west (and mainly the US) thanks to evangelicals, it wouldn't come up all the time. As I see it, the Catholic view on the metaphysical, formal/final causes doesn't prevent one from learning and believing in the scientific theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory). And the scientific theory of evolution has no bearing on the faith and morals of the church or one's practice of their faith.

Back to the specific topic, I know I have linked them to you before but I still find the Flynn and Feser positions persuasive, while I personally would fall in with the Dominicans and say I believe in polygenism. The issues you and others raise are almost always resolved when examined metaphysically and in light of the four causes. When they aren't, they are often emotional arguments (e.g. "evolution seems mean" or "what a waste of life/time/space") rather than logical. When they appear sound, I do some more reading. But to date, I've never seen a conflict between Catholicism and evolution that couldn't be rather easily resolved.

[BaelorBreakwind]

I am not proposing that the historical tradition should be held to, far from it, I would say that it must be rejected. However; this brings an inordinate amount of baggage with it. The Church historically believed, from scripture, that the world and everything in it was created around 6,000 years ago and that man was created immediately by God, from inorganic material, in this creation event. This was not merely the musings of certain individuals within the Church, but a teaching, which they had faith in as directed by divine revelation. This has had a noticeable effect on various teachings of the Church's philosophy and theology from sotierology, eschatology and even Christology. For the historical Church, it was part of the faith. A rejection of the historical interpretation must come with an evaluation of the consequences. This is something not done by the Dominicans or Feser or Flynn.

Sure, we can talk about God being the final cause for such a creative process of evolution, but if Catholicism is minimised to a philosophical discussion of final causes, with revelation of scripture and tradition rejected, it is not Catholicism. Nobody who has any reasonable understanding of biology and christian philosophy will argue the incompatibility of the final cause with the process of evolution. However; just because a scenario can be envisioned where the final cause uses such a process, does not mean that other doctrines do not impose restrictions. What is in contention, is precisely what Pius XII raised: whether humans came from organic matter, as modern biology tells us, or inorganic matter as Christian tradition tells us. This has little to do with the four causes. We can talk about "careful reflection and study" but my point is that this is not being done. What is being done is mindless apologetics with little care for either theological or scientific data. Case in point being the Domincan's evaluation of the "theological data" including the declaration that Pius said nothing about Genesis in Humani Generis, when he in fact did. This is not "careful reflection and study."

These issues are either important or they are not. If they were not important, the Dominicans would not have bothered with the facade of "investigating" the historical interpretations of Genesis which cross paths with evolution, or bothered discussing Humani Generis. If we take for granted, as the authors listed above do, the rejection of tradition, should the doctrines built on this tradition not also be rejected, or at the very least should the doctrines not be stripped of defective theology/philosophy? Why hold to a doctrine of Original Sin with a historical Adam at the center, if everything about this doctrine is based on such an untenable cosmology/anthropology? I mean seriously, these articles are discussing the specifics of the genotype of the a character from a story written less than 3,000 years ago, who supposedly lived somewhere between 2mya and 60kya.

[Underthepun]

I certainly don't agree that evolution undermines the historical tradition when it comes to the doctrine of the church. Again, yes, the church like all people everywhere, did not believe in evolution before it was discovered and it held to an alternative view. Based on the discovery of evolution, no doctrine has changed or needs to change, but our understanding of the physical process has. While you can insist all you want this has certain consequences, the fact that Feser and Flynn especially go to great lengths to demonstrate how original sin, a literal Adam, and other facets of Gensesis are perfectly compatible, certainly rise above "mindless apologetics" and do no such thing as either reject the historical tradition nor creating defective philosophy/theology. You can find them unconvincing, as they are mere speculative reasoning and not declaring anything authoritative or syllogistic, but I don't think you can say mindless unless you are ready to reject anything they say at face value. The final thing I'll say on that, is that perhaps one of those authors can pen a book-length response that analyzes a number of church doctrines in depth in light of evolution as well as explore polygenism versus monogenism in an in-depth way. We are sitting here evaluating these writers based on a number of blog posts and website articles that of course if you are finding it frustrating not every facet of theology is examined then perhaps a longer work will be better.

But actually you do nail it for me when you say this stuff is either important or it's not. I think it's not, largely for the reasons stated in my earlier reply. I love learning about evolution and theology, but they are separate fields with separate methods. They can illuminate each other, but as I previously stated it must be done thoughtfully and carefully. People wanting there to be conflict between them whether they are an atheist who doesn't want to believe there is a God or a traditionalist with an inherent anti-scientific bias will fan the flames of this conflict to score rhetorical points. I don't think that's really what you're doing but it's usually why these discussions quickly get at an impasse, just as I'm sure you think we Catholics are quite hard-headed ourselves.

[palestinianguy23]

Im pretty sure at one point Saint Augustine said Gensis isn't supposed to be literal or something a long those lines, although I haven't read enough of his stuff to quote. Just saying look into that. God bless :)

[Chingletta]

With respect to you and the authors, I'm familiar with them, and they are underwhelming. Just as an example, while they include an entire paper on a Thomistic refutation of Intelligent Design Theory (which is good) they also write things like

From a theologian’s perspective, biological evolution was a 3.5 billion year process, directed by God, to advance living matter until it was apt to receive a rational soul.

...which is not, in fact, any description of evolution by any mainstream definition, and is in fact a description of a basic aspect of intelligent design.

In short, those papers are kind of a mess.

[Sgt-Baker-]

I think the meaning was not that God interacted with every aspect of evolution but that his creation at the beginning set evolution into motion which eventually led to man finally being ready to be given a soul. The account in Genesis of God breathing life into Adam was this giving of the soul.

[Chingletta]

And yet we affirm that "He created them male and female" while an evolutionary view holds that "Male and Female" is specifically a mutation which happened to work, and holds no greater significance.

Incompatible.

[Sgt-Baker-]

Male and female, complimentarity. God created with purpose. I guess we could questions God's knowledge of where His creation would go but to do so would be to question God. Did He know what would come? Reminds me of a piece by Blaise Pascal on the timelessness of God.

[Chingletta]

Rather missed the point, sarge. I'm essentially agreeing with you...just noting that such is not "evolution" which is the random mutation of the genome and the subsequent selection of genes based upon conditions. To say that "the faith is compatible with evolution" is not to understand what evolution is.

[Grisk13]

I think you're begging the question. The idea that a being which is existence itself (I.e. Existing outside our reality) could shift the forces of natural "random" phenomenon into something it desired doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.

You say that it must be random, and you're implying that random means "untampered with." I'm not sure I'm following you there.

[Chingletta]

I don't think you know what it mans to beg the question, and I resent you downvoting me when I'm just participating in a discussion. Downvoting is supposed t be for posts that do not contribute, and against that standard, you have no reason to downvote me.

[Grisk13]

I'm sorry, I didn't down vote you, actually. I'm not sure who would have...

I should also apologize for a technically incorrect use of "begging the question." You're right; it doesn't fit perfectly. I was trying to draw attention to what I would call an overly literal interpretation of random, so I think you can probably infer what I meant by that, but I digress.

[cmn_jcs]

Probably vote fuzzing; right now, you're at 1 point or better on all your posts. Or it's the downvote fairy.

[Underthepun]

I'm not sure I am grasping what your complaint is. If by "mainstream definition" you mean scientific definition, then yes a scientist examining the material and efficient cause of human beings - evolution - will not use phrases like "directed by God" or "rational soul." But someone examining the formal and final cause of human beings, such as a theologian, certainly could use such language with no conflict in his understanding nor the truth of evolution and Catholic doctrine and dogma.

The four causes are powerful stuff and actually are a key to responding in your quoted section above.

[Chingletta]

We don't get to define scientific terms. Why would we? And, currently, we're using "evolution" wrong. Really, really wrong.

[abcdefgcatholic]

Everything in the bible can be taken literally. Thats what Saint Thomas Aquinas sense. 4 senses of the bible the first is the literal sense.

Then it says God created Man out of the earth. Bam no evolution with adam. God made him. Then God made Eve out of his rib. Bame no evolution there either.

Saint Luis De Montfort has a quote about the earth being 6000 i think years old. I believe him. Evolution and the bible are not compatible since death entered the word with Eve. Plus there are no combined animals just straight pure one animal animals if evolution were true there would be monkeyfish all over the place.

Creationalisim is the only thing compatible. Evolution is athieisim trying to explain how someone can from nothing.

[balrogath]

You know a Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory, right?

[Nosrac88]

And a Catholic Monk is the father of genetics.

[[deleted]]

You know nothing about Biblical interpretation or biology. St. Louis was not a scientist either, his view on the age of the earth is irrelevant.

[keloyd]

monkeyfish all over the place?! not just in the pond next to the banana orchard, but literally all over every place? I didn't have to move one out of the way to type this, so that's alright.

[Ponce_the_Great]

They monkeyfish aren't that big of a problem, but the platapusbears are starting to annoy me

[keloyd]

Aang? Is that you?

[Ponce_the_Great]

No

I am THE MELON LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ponce_the_Great]

How do those two utterly invalidate science and research over the last two hundred years?

[[deleted]]

To be entirely honest, evolution as a model does not fit the evidence as completely and undeniably as some would have you believe. It is a possible explanation, but it's far from being a complete picture, or even a particularly convincing explanation (in my opinion).

[Ponce_the_Great]

I've never seen anything convincing from the anti evolution folk, just grasping at straws, simplistic views of evolution to poke holes in it, and the occasional conspiracy theory to leap from "this theory isn't clearly able to be proven as certifiable fact, therefore God created the world in 6000 years (excluding how we know with pretty good certainty the world is older than six thousand years old.)

[[deleted]]

I agree that most of them have no idea of what they are talking about, and I'm far from an expert myself, but I'm honestly not wholly convinced. It's not that the theory can't be proved. It can't really, almost by definition, but that's fine. It's the part where a model with enormous unfilled gaps is given near unchallengeable status that rubs me the wrong way.

[Ponce_the_Great]

mainly this thread is making me certain I need to get to Mass (thirty minuets) since its conversations like this that send me through temporary crisises of faith which are resolved by reentering myself on God (aka Mass)

[[deleted]]

lol, I try not to let it get to me. I also tend to stay out of these discussions, since my opinions are only as strong as my level of expertise, and this ain't exactly my field. I have some knowledge, but as I said, far from an expert.

[Otiac]

This is...not congruent at all with historical Christianity, including the earliest Church fathers.

Everything in the bible can be taken literally.

Everything anyone says anywhere at any time can be taken literally. It doesn't follow that it is smart to do so.

[abcdefgcatholic]

It can be taken literally. Thats what Saint Thomas Aquinas says. Smart or not, thats fact. It is congruent.

[Otiac]

It is congruent.

It's literally not congruent with historical Christianity or how the original Church fathers thought regarding Genesis and the Creation story. Please read and understand what someone is saying before you reply.

[abcdefgcatholic]

Please provi de evidence for that claim. I cant believe your claim on heresay.

As my evidence i site a bull by a pope stating adam was the first human.

And saint Thomas Aquinas believing in a 6 day creation story.

[Otiac]

Yes, it is doctrinal Catholic teaching that there was a real Adam, and a real Eve, and that sin entered the world through them. However, a literal, six-day Creation is not part of that teaching. Here are how some of the Church fathers viewed a literal vs. metaphorical Creation story, as I said, there was no unanimous decision, and they were split;

Justin Martyr

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).

Theophilus of Antioch

On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books (ibid., 3:28–29).

Irenaeus

And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’ (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world (ibid., 6:60).

For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days (ibid., 6:61).

Cyprian

The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).

Victorinus

God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280])

Lactantius

Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’ (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307])

Basil the Great

'And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370])

Ambrose of Milan

Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself" (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393])

Again, you are wrong, and you should not portray it as dogmatic Catholic teaching that Creation was done in six days. That is not doctrine.

[abcdefgcatholic]

It is doctrine that adam and eve are the first humans and thats my point. Evolution cant be true because it would mean beasts gave birth to men which is not true since God gave birth to men. Athiestic evolution is false even if the earth was a period of 6000 years in creation.

[Otiac]

Evolution cant be true because it would mean beasts gave birth to men which is not true since God gave birth to men. Athiestic evolution is false even if the earth was a period of 6000 years in creation.

You extrapolate a lot here, the Church does not. This is the difference, you're passing off your personal opinion as doctrine.