Here is from Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
Catholics and Evolution
The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism
Darwinism and the
theory of evolution are
by no means equivalent conceptions.
The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.
Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That
God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is
per se not improbable, and was propounded by
St. Augustine (see
SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, under V.
Augustinism in History). The actual
proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however,
inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human
soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of
God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm
Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)
General conclusions
The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:—
- The origin of life is unknown to science.
- The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
- There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
- There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
- Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
- There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.
