Does the man come from the ape?

The Theory of Evolution sustains that animals and also man stem one from the other by successive transformations and selections, through evolutions from the simplest to the most complex beings. As a particular matter, by evolution, man would come  from the ape. This theory, due to Darwin, is backed by the discovery of different skeletons which are different than those of modern man, with a more robust bone framework and a flatter skull, more similar to an ape’s skull.


This theory is often mentioned as a theory demonstrated by science and as an unquestionable truth. In reality, it is not more than an exercise of imagination, an hypothesis in order to explain the apparition of man on earth, without the creating action of God (mainly on the first version of the theory).


Nobody has succeeded in obtaining a man from an ape. Nor to date back the ascendants of man to an ape: and the data that seem to prove the hypothesis of evolution can have other different explanations, other satisfactory hypothesis which have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


In the already mentioned book[27], Maria Valtorta writes: “I hear the news that they have found in a cavern some skeletons of a man-ape. I wonder and think: “How can they be sure of such a thing? Could such man-beasts exist? Even today, we can see bodies and faces which are ape-like. Perhaps primitive men had a skeleton different from ours. And another thought comes to mind: “Can they differ in beauty? I cannot understand that early men, being nearer to the perfect specimen created by God, which certainly was most beautiful and very strong, were more brute than we are”. It is one matter to think about how the beauty of the most perfect created work could degrade to the point that scientists can find reasons to refuse that man has been created by God and another matter to deduce that he is the result of the evolution of the ape.

Jesus speaks to me and says: “You have the key in Chapter 6 of Genesis. Read it[28]. I read it and Jesus asks me: “Do you understand it?”


“I do not, my Lord. What I understand is that men were corrupted very soon and nothing else. I don’t see the relation of this chapter with the man-ape”.

Jesus smiles and answers:

“You are not the only one who doesn’t understand it, because wise men, scientists, believers or atheists, don’t understand it either. Pay attention!” And He starts to recite: “When men began to multiply on earth, and had daughters born to them, the sons of God and Seth saw that the daughters were fair, they took wives for themselves among the ones they liked most…. Thus, once the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men and these brought forth, those potent and famous men appeared. Those men, due to their big skeletons, attract the attention of your scientists who deduce that, in those times, men were taller and stronger and these scientists can tell from the structure of the skulls that man comes from the ape. These are well-known errors of men in front of the mysteries of Creation!”


God’s explanation in Maria Valtorta’s passage goes on as follows: “Those who were sons of God no more, since with their fathers and as themselves separated from God in order to receive Satan, threw themselves into unlawful, degrading and bestial actions, getting as far as to have monsters for sons and daughters. They are the monsters which now call the attention of your scientists, making them take the wrong road. The monsters, which, due to the might of their forms, their wild beauty and their bestial fieriness, a result of Cain’s union with the brutes and the union of Cain’s sons with the beasts, seduced the sons of God, the descendants of Set through Enós, Quenan, Mahalalel, Yéred, Hénoc de Yéred –not to confuse with Hénoc of Cain- Mathusalem, Lamek and Noah, father of Sem, Cam and Jafet”. “It was then that God, in order to avoid the sons of God getting fully corrupted with the sons of man, sent the universal Flood to suffocate men’s lewdness under the weight of the water and to destroy the monsters engendered by the lust of those without God, insatiable in their sensuousness, because they were consumed with passion by Satan’s fire”.


“And the man of today goes off the tracks with somatic lines and cheekbone angles. Being too haughty to accept he has been created, he admits he descends from brutes, in order to be able to say: “We have managed it by ourselves, in evolution from animals to men”. Man degrades himself not accepting to humiliate himself before God. And he descends. Of course he descends!…”


In sum, the discovered skeletons of men which are called men-apes by the evolution theory are but the rests of degenerated men who perished in the Flood.


The hypothesis of evolution wouldn’t  be but a pleasant fable for  those who like to live apart from God or for those who, not refusing God’s existence, but believing and wanting to back up such a pseudo-science, without any debate, err in conceiving God as not able to create immediately from nothingness.


Paradoxically, with the eventual negation of God and his creational power, atheist evolutionists confer this creational power to other beings: to not living matter which would “create” life or to a “primitive soup” of not intelligent cells which will “create” intelligent life. Negating God, instead, some material beings becomes some type of “god”, turning then to idolatry disguised however of scientific appearance.


In other work of Maria Valtorta[29], we can read:


“Darwin’s theory[30]is one of the points where your haughtiness makes you fall into error and more humiliates you by giving yourselves an origin which, if you were not blinded by haughtiness you would refuse as degrading.


In order to deny God creating man from clay with His power which created the Universe and man from nothingness, you are ascribing your origins to an animal.

Do you not see that you are degrading yourselves?  For, think it over, an animal as perfect as it can be, as selected, improved and perfected it can be in its form and instinct and even in its mind constitution, it will always be an animal. Don’t you get it? This doesn’t match too well with your pride of pseudo-supermen.


Well, if you don’t understand it, I won’t waste any words trying to take you out of your error. There is just a question that you, who make yourselves out to be so intelligent, never asked yourselves and I want to put to you. If you can answer it with facts, I won’t fight your degrading theory ever again.


If man comes from the ape, which in a progressive evolution became a man, how is it that, having sustained such theory during so many years, you never have succeeded in making a man from an ape, not even with the perfected instruments and methods you have today? You could choose from a pair of intelligent apes, its still more intelligent children, the intelligent children of the latter and so forth. You would have many generations of selected and trained apes, treated with the most patient, constant and sagacious scientific methods. Nevertheless, you would always have apes. Maybe if you obtained any mutation it would be this: animals would be physically less strong and morally more defective than the first ones, because, with all your methods and instruments, you would have done nothing but to destroy the apish perfection which my Father gave to them, when He created them.


Another question: If man descends from the ape, how is it that never, not even with inoculations and repulsive crossings, has he been transformed in an ape? You would be willing to try such aberrations if you knew that, through them, you could ratify your theory. You don’t do it because you know that you would never succeed in making an ape from a man. You would perhaps obtain a horrifying son of man, a degenerated person or, maybe, a delinquent, but never a true ape. You don’t try it because you know beforehand that you wouldn’t succeed and that you would loose your reputation.


That’s why you don’t try it and not for any other reason. For, on condition to sustain a thesis, you don’t feel remorse nor repugnance to degrade man to the level of the brutes. You are capable of this and much more. And you are already brutes, because you are refusing God and killing the spirit, which differentiates you from them”.


Your science horrifies me. You degrade your understanding and you have such a lack of consciousness, that you don’t feel it. I verily say you that many savages are much more human than you”.


The theory of evolution, which has man descending from the ape, rises a lot of questions, some of them concerning reason and others concerning faith:


As per reason: Human beings share a main common genetic heritage, which makes us think on a common ancestor, from whom we have inherited the mentioned genetic features. If man had appeared through spontaneous evolution of several four legged beings, it would be logical that such evolution had brought several first men, without a main, common chromosome heritage. The fact that we can speak about a single first human couple (with small racial differences which can be explained by the influence of the environment) backs up what the Bible says -the apparition of a single couple- and it would be quite hard to make this compatible with the theory of evolution, without admitting God’s action (in which many evolutionist don’t believe).


On the other hand, and using reason again, how is it possible that, from a being without reason, a being with  intelligence and consciousness appears, that from an ape comes out a man? To answer this question we need once more the intervention of God, who would insufflate a soul into the animal’s body, but God can also do that directly over  a little piece of clay as we read in Genesis, without any need to use the brute. What cannot be admitted is that from something missing some quality (from the animal without intelligence) something appears with this quality (the intelligent and conscious man), by spontaneous generation: it is not possible that from less we get more, that from the relative nothingness the most perfect being appears, as sustained by atheistic evolutionists.


On the other hand, some questions arise from faith: first, the theory of evolution asserts that primitive man was less perfect than today’s man. Contrarily, faith tells us that the first humans, Adam and Eve, were in a state of original justice, which made them exempt of suffering and death, they were free of concupiscence, having therefore a perfect self control and a bright intelligence. So, in the (universal) Catechism of the Church, Nº 376, we can read: “Thanks to the irradiation of such a grace (the grace of primitive holiness), all the dimensions of man’s life were strengthened. As long as he was in divine intimacy, he could not even die”.  


Therefore, first man was much more perfect in the natural and supernatural order, which contradicts the theory of evolution, which pretends that first man was almost an animal.

Second: faith tells us that man is formed by, composed of body and soul: If the body was not directly created by God but springs out from the evolution of other animals, as sustained by the theory of evolution, when was then the soul created and when was it added to the being which until then was only an animal? Is this believable and suitable? According to Maria Valtorta’s writings, God’s voice says to her[31]: “When and how could man receive the soul, if he was the result of the evolution of brutes?  Can we even imagine that brutes have received together with their animal life a spiritual soul, the immortal soul, the intelligent soul, the free soul? It is a blasphemy to even think it. How could they then transmit what they had not? Could God offend Himself, by infusing the spiritual soul, His divine blowing, in an animal, as developed as you want, but always coming from a broad procreation of brutes? To think like that is also to offend God”.

Last, Faith tells us that Adam and Eve sinned and that they passed on to us the “Original Sin” [“sin” in an analogical way: it is not a “committed “ but a “contracted” sin, a state but not an action (cit. Universal Catechism, Nº 494) ]. But if the sin committed in the origins is passed on to every man, to every descendant of Adam (cit. Universal Catechism, N1 404), it means that there was only a couple of first humans and not several couples as it would be logical to think, if the theory of evolution were accepted.

Thus, there are a lot of arguments coming from reason and faith in order to refuse the theory of evolution as a fable without any base in science or in faith.

Let’s finish with some other words which, according to Maria Valtorta, are dictated by Jesus:

“There wasn’t any autogenesis nor evolution, but Creation wished by the Creator. Your reason, of which you are so proud, should help you to see that you cannot obtain an initial thing from nothing and that the whole can not originate from an initial and unique thing. 

Only God is able to put chaos in order and set it with the numberless creatures which form the Universe. And this mighty Creator had no limits in his multiple action of creation, as He had no limits in order to produce perfect creatures, each with the suitable perfection for the end for which it was created. It is nonsense to think that, wishing an Universe for Himself, God would have created shapeless things, having to wait for successive evolutions, in order that creatures reached the perfection of their nature, so that they would able to accomplish the natural or supernatural aim to which they were created.

What does the teaching of the Church say about the theory of evolution?


The teaching of the Popes does not condemn every theory of evolution, but just those of materialistic nature.


Thus, the Humani Generis (12th August 1950) of Pius XII does not forbid the theory of evolution as a study object, through research and discussions by the most learned men, as long as it searches for the origin of the human body in pre-existent matter,but for the Catholic faith, it is a must to defend that souls are directly created by God. This faith also condemns poly-genesis, so that one must believe that all men come from Adam (cit. “Christianity” Nº 785-786 Nov. Dec. 1996, “Evolutionism in the “Humani Generis” Encyclical” Pg. 12).


Pope Jean Paul II ratifies such teachings (22-10-1996, “truth cannot contradict truth”, are words of Jean Paul II in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences). He reiterates the teachings of the “Humani generis” asserting that “the soul is directly created by God” and continues: “Therefore, evolution theories which, in function of the philosophies which inspire them, sustain that the spirit arises from the forces of live matter or that it is only an epiphenomenon of such matter are not compatible with the truth about man. Furthermore, such theories are not capable of laying a foundation for the dignity of the person” (Christianity, same Number, Pg. 11). Therefore, the Pope does not condemn every theory of evolution but just those which are incompatible with faith.

[26]We quote part of the reasons of Maria Valtorta in the already mentioned books: “Cuadernos de 1945 a 1950”.Translation by Santiago Simón Orta, 1986, Pamplona, A. Gráfica, Pgs 285-289; “Cuadernos de 1943”, same translator, Pgs. 658-660; “Lecciones sobre la Epístola de San Pablo a  los Romanos”, Translation by the same author, Pgs. 124-131.

[27]To see the basis in Saint Bible to the assertion in Valtorta’s books: In Chapter 6 of Genesis, Vers. 4,  we can read: “On earth, there were then giants and also later, when the sons of  God were joined to the daughters of men. And from there, heroes appeared, which are famous men”. And in Wisdom 14, 6, we are told that “in the beginning” proud giants perished and the hope of the world (Noe) did survive (to the deluge) in a balsa assuring  some descendants  to the humanity.

[28]Maria Valtorta, “Cuadernos de 1945 a 1950”, Pgs 285-189. Maria Valtorta lived until 1960. She offered herself to suffer for sinners everything that God ordered her, she lay in bed for many years with several serious diseases and she started to receive locutions from Jesus, which were written by her in writing-books, occupying nowadays at least ten thick bands. They are certainly private revelations, but the beauty and the depth of many paragraphs, as well as the signs of holiness in Maria Valtorta suggest they are true.

[29]María Valtorta, Cuadernos de 1943, translation by Santiago Simón Orta from the original Italian, Pgs, 658-660


[30]Evolutionism by Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

[31]María Valtorta, “Lecciones sobre la epístola de San Pablo a los Romanos”, translation by Santiago Simón Orta, Pg. 130