Evolution & Catholicism Are Incompatible

My opponent says, “The title of this debate is that Evolution and Catholicism ARE incompatible. "Are" is present tense, not past tense. An argument by a reactionary Pope from 100 years ago does not represent what the Church says today. Time has rolled on and understanding has increased." If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.* - Vatican 1 *anathema means excommunicated, or expelled from the Church Let's read, again, what Pope Pius X said Modernist heretics say: In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of these books is not science or history but religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses. The masses understood science and history as they are expressed in these books, and it is clear that had science and history been expressed in a more perfect form this would have proved rather a hindrance than a help[...] Now, let us read what my opponent has just said: [E]very word of the Bible is literally true? No. The Bible was not written as a history book, a science book, not a sociology book. Its truth is in what it teaches about the supernatural and therefore it is the MESSAGE which the writers were inspired to proclaim where truth is to be found. The message of the Bible is what is necessary for our own salvation[...] If the Bible was interpreted literally was the science in it correct? NO! But that was because the scientific understanding of the day was incorrect. The authors were not inspired to write scientific truth nor historic truth, but rather only that truth which is necessary for our salvation. They did that in reference to what they knew of science and history. The scientific understanding which is related in the Bible is the scientific understanding OF THE DAY. If the science was incorrect, blame the "scientists" of the day. The apologetics of Modernist Heresy, and the apologetics of my opponent, are practically indistinguishable as to almost be comical. I could attempt to rebutt these heretical apologetics, but I'll just requote Pope Pius X: Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines - methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the formation of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any religion. (emphasis mine) My opponent says, That said, it is interesting to note that behind the lines of Genesis Chapter 1 there lies an agreement with not only evolution, but the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and Pangea. There is also at least some agreement between Karl Marx and Ron Paul; I'm sure they would both agree that the sky is blue. This does not make their beliefs compatible; in fact, their beliefs were exact opposites (Libertarianism VS Communism). My opponent says, They correspond almost precisely with that which evolutionary scientists explain. This is a concession from my opponent that Genesis and what evolutionary scientists say are not compatible, for there are at least some inconsistencies. My opponent says, You also do not state any proof that the Church Fathers were in unanimous consent on the issue of a literal 6 day creation. That's because I never claimed they agreed on a literal 6 day creation. I said that all of them, all the hundreds of them, agreed that creation happened within a literal week. My opponent is incapable of providing even a single counter example. My opponent says, In understanding Scriptures it is also important to understand how and why they were written. For example Genesis 1 was originally a SONG. Genesis 2 was essentially a morality play. This is simply nonsense. 21 Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Matthew 18:21-22 My opponent says, A literalist would then come up with that we should forgive 490 times. This passage really is to be taken literally. Jesus is saying that if your brother sins against you 490 times, forgive him 490 times. I do not see what problem my opponent has with this. Even mainstream psychologists teach that forgiveness is good and eases the pain of resentment. Christ response was an exaggeration for emphasis. No, it wasn't in the slightest. So Scripture obviously is not to be taken literally in every case. I'm not arguing that Jesus' parables should be taken literally. After all, Jesus specified that they were parables. Show me where Genesis is specified as a parable in the Bible and I'll forfeit this debate. As stated, the Church has long stated that there can be no conflict between scientific and religious truth. This is even spoken about in the Catechism. This has no relevance to this debate. If Evolution is true, the Church is wrong, and vice versa. The compatibility is the topic, not the truth value of either. They could both be wrong and still be incompatible. In as far as evolution itself the Church has long stated that there is no conflict between Church teachings and a belief in evolution. That's a great claim with absolutely zero evidence to back it up. Quoting Wikipedia as saying, "In as far as evolution itself the Church has long stated that there is no conflict between Church teachings and a belief in evolution" doesn't count as evidence because I can easily go myself to that page and update it to say that Evolution is heresy. My arguments from the previous round stand.