CathInfo.com

Although Francis Parker Yockey was not a Catholic, I find the section on Darwinism in his book Imperium to be one of the best takedowns of this nonsense that I've read. Here are some excerpts that I would like to share: 



"This is only the foreground, for actually the road from Darwin back to Calvin is quite clear: Calvinism is a religious interpretation of the "survival of the fittest" idea, and it calls the fit the "elected." Darwinism makes this election-process mechanical-profane instead of theological-religious: selection by Nature instead of election by God. It remains purely English in the process, for the national religion of England was an adaptation of Calvinism." (pg. 44)




"In the first place, there is no "Struggle for existence" in nature; this old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world. Such struggles for existence as do occur are the exception; the rule in Nature is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be "struggle," since only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war. A lion making a meal of a zebra portrays no "struggle" between two species, unless one is determined so to regard it. Even so, he must concede that it is not physically, mechanically, necessary for the carnivores to kill other animals. They could as well eat plants — it is the demand of their animal souls however to live in this fashion, and thus, even if one were to call their lives struggles, it would not be imposed by "Nature" but by the soul. It becomes thus, not a "struggle for existence," but a spiritual necessity of being one's self." (pgs. 45-46)



"As a factual picture, this is easier to refute than it is to prove, and factual biological thinkers, both Mechanists and Vitalists, like Louis Agassiz, Du Bois-Reymond, Reinke, and Driesch rejected it from its appearance. The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species "evolving" into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species "adapting" itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which "adaptation" then resulted in more "fitness" for the "struggle for existence," and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.

Darwinians cannot get over these facts by bringing in great spaces of time, for palaeontology has never discovered any intermediate types, but only distinct species. Nor are the fossil animals which have died out any simpler than present-day forms, although the course of evolution was supposed to be from simple to complex Life-forms. This was crude anthropomorphism — man is complex, other animals are simple, they must be tending toward him, since he is "higher" biologically.

Calling Culture-man a "higher" animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme." (pg. 46)



"The Darwinian analogy between artificial selection and natural selection is also in opposition to the facts. The products of artificial selection such as barnyard fowls, racing dogs, race horses, ornamental cats, and song-canaries, would certainly be at a disadvantage against natural varieties. Thus artificial selection has only been able to produce less fit life-forms.

Nor is Darwinian sɛҳuąƖ selection in accordance with facts. The female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other." 
(pgs. 46-47)




"The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over the "millions of years" necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did this process start! For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian." (pg. 47)

Interestingly, two Popes with Jєωιѕн family lines, both struggling with contradictions to the Catholic Faith.

Just for the heck of it, what exactly was Pius XII's Jєωιѕн ancestry?  I don't challenge it, I've just never heard that before.  TBH, his nose is characteristically Jєωιѕн (convex nasal bridge), though both my grandfather and my uncle had the same type of nose, and they were anything but Jєωιѕн (English and Scots-Irish).

I realize that John Paul II's mother's maiden name was Kaczorowa (the Polonized feminine form of the surname Katz, FWIW I have known Christians whose last name was Katz, so it may be aboriginally Jєωιѕн or it may not be), but I have never heard that about Pius XII.

And then there is the (in my opinion) fairly well-docuмented narrative that St Pius X's family was Polish --- "Sarto" is an Italian calque of the Polish surname "Krawiec", both of which translate to "tailor" (Taylor).