A Sermon against Evolution

[This is an actual sermon, by an actual priest. He graciously allowed us to publish it on our web site. Please keep in mind that it was written to be communicated orally, not in print. The standards of citation reflect that. The priest who gave the sermon is especially indebted to Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP1]

By the authority invested in my own mind, I am declaring this Sunday to be “back to school Sunday.” And so, let’s all go back to school.

The lawyer, in today’s Gospel, asked a good moral question – “Teacher, what must I do to possess eternal life?” This is actually a good catechism question. The Church answers – “To save my soul I must worship God by faith, hope, and charity…”

Since faith is necessary to be saved, let’s make sure we have the right faith beginning with the most fundamental catechetical question: “Who made me?” The Catholic Faith tells us that “God made me.” This belief is necessary to be saved. But the world has a different answer. And many Catholics believe its answer rather than what the Catholic Faith teaches. For the world believes we were created not by God but by random processes. Therefore, we are freaks of nature and my great, great, great (to the 100th exponent) grandfather was Stan the chimpanzee.

Science magazine is regarded as one of the world’s premier science journals. In one of its articles we read about a certain so-called scientific theory called evolution. According to Science magazine evolutionary theory holds that our ancestry goes further back than the apes. It goes all the way back to the big bang where there was nothing but hydrogen molecules. If you haven’t done so already, make sure your family photo album includes a big H2 symbol at the start of your family tree. According to Science magazine, all life can be directly traced back to a single element, hydrogen.

“The true definition of evolution discovered by science is this: Evolution is molecules-to-man, natural transformation in which new, “higher”, genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one’s ancestors.” According to Science magazine, I wasn’t made by anyone.

Rather, I am the accidental product of what happens when a whole bunch of hydrogen molecules hang around together for a really long period of time. No wonder why I am nothing more than a bunch of hot air.

However, evolutionary theory is missing the missing links between species that would verify its claims. Gary Keane, from Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, writes: “we can be certain that evolution, as commonly understood, has never occurred because it cannot occur. Why? Because God has designed life forms so that only variety within kind is possible. The missing mechanism of evolution is doomed to remain missing because it never existed. That’s why there are no intermediate stages found in the fossil record – they have never existed! This absence of intermediates was candidly admitted by the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.”2 Therefore, evolution, properly speaking, is not natural selection, nor is it variation within a species. No, the theory of evolution boldly posits a natural progression from a lower to a higher genetic state that occurs by chance and not by God.

What is the problem? The amount of genetic information contained in just one cell is equivalent to a library with 4000 volumes, with 500 pages, and 300 words per page. It is statistically impossible that such information could organize itself from a hydrogen molecule. Realizing these astronomical odds, how does Dr. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University professor, explain how such a complex life processes could have evolved? In a documentary film called Expelled, Dr Dawkins stated candidly that life on earth was seeded by aliens. According to Dr. PhD Dawkins, in order to explain life on this planet, aliens must have brought it here from outer space.

Another eminent scientist explained in the same film that life emerged on this planet because certain molecules climbed on the back of crystals and were thus organized into the building blocks for life. So, any one who wishes to believe in evolution has two fundamental choices for explaining the origins of life on this planet.

Either one must believe in aliens (although Dr. Dawkins did not explain where the aliens came from) or one must believe that inorganic crystals intelligently organized other molecules to become the building blocks for life. (This may serve to explain the pious veneration of crystals practiced by our very separated New Age brethren.)

But how is it possible for unintelligent matter to act intelligently? How is it possible for the effect to be greater than the cause? Does not the evolutionary hypothesis seem hard to believe? Does not evolutionary theory require more of an act of faith? Isn’t evolutionary theory more of a religion than a science? What kind of god, then, is believed by the religion of the evolutionists? In the Journal of Nature, another premier scientific journal, we are told in a 1991 article, what this evolutionary god is like. “Whatever [be] the god implied by evolutionary theory, He is not a loving god who cares about his production, he is careless, wasteful, indifferent, and almost diabolical; he is certainly not the sort of god to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.” Do you want the god of evolution to be your god? If you believe in evolution, according to the Journal of Nature, you believe in a diabolical god. “Evolutionists, could Satan be your god?”

Let us hear from Dr. Richard Dawkins again: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Evolutionary theory makes atheism intellectually feasible. Evolutionary theory leads de facto to atheism. And while the atheistic implications of evolution might be news to us, evolutionists knew about these implications from beginning.

Karl Marx wanted to dedicate parts of his Das Capital to Darwin but Darwin wrote back to Marx, refusing the honor because he did not believe that Marx’s direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought. Professor William Provine, of Cornell, explains further:“The reason for the scientist’s reticence about the atheistic implications of evolution is because funding for their projects would suffer. While it is possible to believe in a god who started the whole process of evolution going, this view of God is worthless because such a God has nothing to do with morals, answers no prayers, and doesn’t confer life everlasting,Religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology if such a religion is indistinguishable from atheism.”

In an article entitled,“The Meaning of Evolution,” we learn of the hostile role that evolution plays against the true religion? “Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason for Jesus’ earthly life, which was supposedly made necessary, for if you destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, then you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. Take away the meaning of his death, and if Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, then Christianity is nothing.” Evolutionary theory intends to demolish traditional religious belief. Is evolution really about science or is it more of an alternative religious belief? Is it truly possible to think that believing in evolution is consistent with Catholicism?


Now let us now take a look at some implications of modern evolutionary theory. We shall look at the influences of evolutionary theory in two areas: in the culture at large and in the Catholic Church. Please note, the highly offensive views which will follow are not the views of this priest nor, more importantly, of the Catholic Church.

Let’s begin with the cultural impact of evolutionary theory. Let’s begin with the following quote on evolution:

“At some future period, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, … (meaning the man-like apes) will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.3

This author believes Negros don’t really belong to the race of men. What author could have espoused such racist ideas? This quote, in fact, was taken from sixth chapter of the world-famous book called The Decent of Man, written by Charles Darwin in 1871. Darwin, the creator of modern evolutionary theory, believed that the progress of civilization will eventually lead to the elimination of the lower races like gorillas and Negros. How is that for cultural racism and evolutionary theory?

Sir Francis Galton was Charles Darwin’s cousin. Galton coined a word to describe Darwin’s theory of evolution. Galton called Darwin’s theory of evolution “eugenics” – meaning good genes. Galton believed it was good to enhance human races with good genes and to diminish races with bad genes. Galton believed that we are to: “check the birth of the unfit instead of allowing them come into being… so that more suitable races … [could have] a better chance of speedily prevailing over the less suitable.” Galton’s belief is entirely consistent with Darwin’s evolutionary views.

Sir Francis Galton wrote: “[Eugenics] must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operates with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. … The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. Then, let its principles work into the heart of the nation, which will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly foresee.” (Francis Galton, The American Journal of Sociology, July, 1904.)4

What did Galton liken evolutionary theory to? He saw evolutionary eugenics as an “orthodox religious tenet.” Is evolution theory more properly science or religion?

In 1904, Francis Galton wrote that the “gifted class” should treat the lower class with kindness “so long as they maintained celibacy.” But Galton said, if they continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities” then these procreators should be considered as “enemies of the State” and to have “forfeited all claims to kindness.” Watch out! Evolutionary theory may not like the quality of the children you are producing and so you may be considered enemies of the state.

Francis Galton was very influential. He attracted a great following, including such fans as Adolph Hitler and the English novelist H. G. Wells. H. G. Wells just happened to be the adulterous bed partner of a woman who was a member of both the American and English Eugenics Society.” This infamous woman wrote:

“Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly … Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born.”5


We all know who this woman is, whose work in eugenics actually assisted Adolph Hitler in his own eugenics’ program to rid the world of Jews. She is none other than Planned Parenthood’s founder: Margaret Sanger. The link between eugenics and the birth control movement is now taken as an established fact and the right to use birth control, even by Catholics, is now wrongly considered as an orthodox religious tenet. What Galton said has proved true. Evolutionary theory is now considered a religious orthodox tenet. And following in Galton’s footsteps, Sanger’s motto on the cover of her Birth Control Review was “More Children for the Fit. Less for the Unfit.” Sanger did not hide whom she considered unfit. The unfit according to Sanger were, “Hebrews, Slavs, Catholics, and Negros.”6

Let us now turn to how the theory of evolution has influenced the Church.

  1. Evolution has undermined belief in Sacred Scripture.

Let us hear from the great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapam.” He wrote: “In early childhood I was told how Darwin’s theory of evolution had demolished the biblical story of creation. And if the very first chapter of the Good Book was nonsensical and untrue, why should the rest be any more credible or useful?7 He is right. If the first part of the bible isn’t true, then why should we think any part of the bible is true?

  1. The theory of evolution destroys the basis for natural law. This is more complex.
    1. The natural law contains those laws which reason can discern naturally without the aid of supernatural revelation. Natural law is derived from the nature of man.
    2. For example, we all know that I should honor my parents because I come from them.
    3. Saint Thomas Aquinas defined the natural law as man’s rational participation in the eternal law of God.
    4. Because God doesn’t change His mind one day from the next, His law doesn’t change, and so natural law can’t change either. If it was true that I should honor my parents 4000 years ago, it is still true today.
    5. But if the theory of evolution is correct then our natures are not fixed, but always evolving. First we had molecular natures, then we became fish, then we acquired ape natures, and we now have a human natures. And if our natures are always changing, then there cannot be anyunchanging natural law based on a fixed human nature.
    6. So, if there are no fixed natures then there is no unchanging natural law.

3. And how does this destruction of natural law play out in moral theology? Fr. Charles Curran used to teach at a pontifical university in Washington DC., before he was fired for his dissenting views in morality. Fr. Curran led the rebellion against Pope Paul VI’s encyclical called Humanae Vita which taught that artificial contraception is always wrong. What was Fr. Curran’s reason for dissenting from the ordinary magisterium of the Church? According to Fr. Curran, “the encyclical pays insufficient attention of the claims of modern science.”

Note: Fr Curran will argue against magisterial teaching, because science now overrides the faith. Fr. Curran believed that: “Man is not determined by a fixed nature within him…which results in unacceptable moral conclusions.”

And what were these claims of modern science that allowed him to dissent from the Church’s moral teaching?

In 1970, Fr. Curran wrote in a moral textbook, complete with an imprimatur, that the modern world view emphases the changing and developing [nature of things]… If natures change there can’t be unchanging natural law upon which many moral laws are based. With an evolutionary world view, Fr. Curran was able to conclude that contraception, abortion, sex outside of marriage, and euthanasia were all morally acceptable in some instances. The problem is that if you attack Fr. Curran’s conclusions you must also attack his evolutionary suppositions which are considered scientific dogmas by many members of the Church.

Therefore, if you believe in evolutionary theory then the Sacred Scriptures are not trustworthy and the natural law can’t be trustworthy.

And finally, if evolution is true then why shouldn’t we act like our ancestors the apes, who are not monogamous and who kill their young…?

Finally: what is the official church teaching on evolution?

Pius XII wrote in 1950 in his encyclical Humani Generis, that the fictitious tenets of evolution … have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy …” Sounds like Pius XII didn’t like evolution.

And again, in the same encyclical:“The faithful cannot embrace that opinion that men came from someone other than Adam and Eve or that Adam and Eve represent a collection of many first parents. Thus God created one man and from that one man, woman was created and all of mankind was created from them.” (Paragraph 37)

Gerry Keane at the Kolbe Center for Creation clarified the Pope’s words when he said: Many Catholics assert that the Catholic Church regards evolution as an open question. They tend to say, “Evolution is acceptable as long as God was involved and as Pius XII taught in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis that evolution is an open question!”

On the contrary, … evolution …as correctly defined – is no longer an open question scientifically. It is only the investigation into the possible origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter that has not yet been closed by Rome. The objective truth known from scientific evidence and theological arguments contradicts evolution. 8

And finally what does God say about evolution?

God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. …

God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

Therefore, “Who made me”? “God made me.” I am not a mere product of chemical reactions, nor a less-hairy ape. God has made you and me. 9

And may God’s Word be the first word and the last word of our lives.

Our Lady of Good Counsel, pray for us.

  1. In fact, this homily is mostly an edited version of http://www.audiosancto.org/categories/culture-of-death.php : Evolution: A False Religious World View Masqueraded as Science given by Fr. Philip Wolfe, FSSP.
  2. “Is Evolution an Open Question for Catholics?” Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Paper given by Gerry Keane at the Kolbe Center Second International Conference, Arlington, Virginia USA, Oct 18-20.
  3. Ch. 6 Descent of Man On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man.
  4. Francis Galton, The American Journal of Sociology, Volume X; July, 1904; Number 1
  5. See next footnote.
  6. Dale Ahlquist wrote in Gilbert Magazine:: “Eugenics led directly to the birth control movement. All the same players were involved, such as Margaret Sanger, … The primary philosophy was trumpeted on the cover of the Birth Control Review: “More Children for the Fit. Less for the Unfit.” {Sanger} made it clear whom she considered unfit:. “Hebrews, Slavs, Catholics, and Negroes.” She set up her Birth Control clinics only in their neighborhoods. She openly advocated the idea that such people should apply for official permission to have babies “as immigrants have to apply for visas.”
  7. “Sermon under the mount” Matthew Chapman, great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, a creationist field trip proved a revelation
  8. “Is Evolution an Open Question for Catholics?” Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation Paper given by Gerry Keane at the Kolbe Center Second International Conference, Arlington, Virginia USA, Oct 18-20, 2002
  9. NAB Leviticus 22:32 and do not profane my holy name; in the midst of the Israelites I, the Lord, must be held as sacred. It is I who made you sacred and led you out of the land of Egypt, that I, the Lord, might be your God.”