Evolution & Catholicism Are Mutually Exclusive

All emphases are mine. Con attacks my conclusion by saying, “It is evident that the Church accepts evolutionary theory, for Pope Pius XII spoke out in favour of it[...]” However, the following quote he took from Pope Pius XII does not actually support his assertion: "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 . . . 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"[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" No where in this quote is it demonstrated that either the Pope or the Catholic Church accepts the Modern Synthesis of Evolution. In fact, a reading of the entire source (fair warning: it's pretty long) reveals the exact opposite, and it becomes clear that Con's paraphrasing is abusive. To get the obvious out of the way: Con's quote only demonstrates acceptance of “research and discussions” regarding evolution. It does not demonstrate acceptance of evolution itself. Con's quote began with, the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that [evolution be researched and discussed] But in reality, the sentence begins with, For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that [evolution be researched and discussed] So, what are the reasons the Church allows discussion of evolution? We've got to read the source to find out: Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths[...] There you have it, folks. The Catholic Church permits discussion and research regarding evolution not because it accepts evolution, but because it considers it a false theory that may have a certain amount of truth contained in it. Now Con's claims that the Pope & the Catholic Church have “found reconciliation” between faith & [the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of] Evolution can be dismissed. Con's arguments regarding the length of the days of Creation Week are completely irrelevant as they have nothing to do with Eve's body being formed out of Adam's rib. I did not bring up any argument related to the length of Creation Week. Con says that, “The Genesis account and the evolutionary account are not antonymous and to subscribe to one theory does not preclude the other.” This is false, as the account of Eve's creation most certainly precludes the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution. Con says, “Pro may respond that this doesn't directly address either premise. But that's not the point; rather, the point is that there is a de jure reason to offer interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolutionary theory, but still hold to literalism.” I must object that this should be considered nonsense by anyone who has read the Book of Genesis and has a grasp of the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution. A literal interpretation of Genesis demands not only the first woman's creation from the rib of the adult Adam while he slept, but a global flood where it rained for 40 days and covered the tops of the highest mountains, the waters not receding for a year. It also requires that birds appeared before dinosaurs. These things are wholly incompatible with the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution. Con says, Does Evolution claim anything about the first humans?Simply, no. Recall the definition of evolution:"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth." It should be immediately obvious that Con is falsely equivocating 'evolution' with 'The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution' in order to undermine my argument. However, remember the resolution! Quoting myself from Round 1: “I will be arguing that the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.” I was very careful to use the term Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution to avoid the very type of false equivocation my opponent is utilizing here. I hope my efforts have not been wasted and one can see through Con's strategy. Con says, “So, the evolutionary Catholic has a de jure reason to reject the second premise: evolutionary theory, in a broad sense of the term, does not occlude God's involvement” This is irrelevant. The resolution is not “The broad sense of the term evolutionary theory does not occlude God's involvement.” The resolution is actually “the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution is incompatible with Roman Catholicism.” Con has attacked a strawman, and my position stands. Roman Catholicism is incompatible with the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution because A) Catholics must believe the first woman was created from the rib of the first adult man while he slept, and B) The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution entails the birth of the first woman from a brute ape. The conflict is obvious. We can also throw the whole "Genesis says birds appeared before dinosaurs but the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution says the exact opposite" thing on top of that, too. Good luck in your next round Con, I look forward to it.