Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?


The literal interpretation of “from his side” is not binding Church doctrine. I know it says that in the bible, but the Church does not insist on that degree of literal interpretation of Genesis.


It most certainly does.


Okay, using all the church doctrine, to the best of your knowledge, imagine the scene of genesis. How would you describe what you saw, when God forms Adam and Eve, in the most empirical and scientific manner possible.


You can’t, it happen supernaturally, which is beyond human understanding and reasoning.


All things that happened in history that can be witnessed by human beings can be described in an empirical manner.

You can describe what it would have looked like, couldn’t you?


There is private revelations about this subject,I have to find it, do you want hear about it ?


Sure, that would be great.


Life of Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich
Vol 1

  1. Adam and Eve

I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situ­ated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mold. The sun was shining and I thought (I was only a child when I saw it) that the sunbeams drew Adam out of the hillock. He was, as it were, born of the virgin earth. God blessed the earth, and it became his mother. He did not instantly step forth from the earth. Some time elapsed before his appearance. He lay in the hillock on his left side, his arm thrown

Adam and Eve

over his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve, and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. There were no trees around, only little flowers. I had seen the animals also, coming forth from the earth in pure singleness, the females separate from the males.

And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a gar­den, to Paradise.

God led all the animals before him in Paradise, and he named them. They followed him and gam­boled around him, for all things served him before he sinned. All that he named, afterward followed him to earth. Eve had not yet been formed from him.

I saw Adam in Paradise among the plants and flowers, and not far from the fountain that played in its center. He was awaking, as if from sleep. Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. He wondered at nothing, nor was he astonished at his own existence. He went around among the trees and the animals, as if he were used to them all, like a man inspecting his fields.

Near the tree by the water arose a hill. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and del­icate. But she quickly increased in size until full grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not for the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tran­quil slumber.

The hill opened, and at Adam’s side arose a crys­talline rock, formed apparently of precious stones. At Eve’s, lay a white valley covered with something like fine white pollen.

  1. Creation of the Earth

Immediately after the prayer of the faithful choirs and that movement in the Godhead, I saw below me, not far from and to the right of the world of shad­ows, another dark globe arise.

I fixed my eyes steadily upon it. I beheld it as if in movement, growing larger and larger, as it were, bright spots breaking out upon it and encircling it like luminous bands. Here and there, they stretched out into brighter, broader plains, and at that moment I saw the form of the land setting boundaries to the water. In the bright places I saw a movement as of life, and on the land I beheld vegetation springing forth and myriads of living things arising. Child that I was, I fancied the plants were moving about.

Up to this moment, there was only a gray light like the sunrise, like early morn breaking over the earth, like nature awakening from sleep.

And now all other parts of the picture faded. The sky became blue, the sun burst forth, but I saw only one part of the earth lighted up and shining. That spot was charming, glorious, and I thought: There’s Paradise!

While these changes were going on upon the dark globe, I saw, as it were, a streaming forth of light out of that highest of all the spheres, the God-sphere, that sphere in which God dwelt.

It was as if the sun rose higher in the heavens, as if bright morning were awakening. It was the first morning. No created being had any knowledge of it, and it seemed as if all those created things had been

there forever in their unsullied innocence. As the sun rose higher, I saw the plants and trees growing larger and larger. The waters became clearer and holier, colors grew purer and brighter—all was unspeakably charming. Creation was not then as it is now. Plants and flowers and trees had other forms. They are wild and misshapen now compared with what they were, for all things are now thoroughly degenerate.

When looking at the plants and fruits of our gar­dens, apricots, for instance, which in southern climes are, as I have seen, so different from ours, so large, magnificent, and delicious, I often think: As miser­able as are our fruits compared with those of the South, are the latter when compared with the fruits of Paradise. I saw there roses, white and red, and I thought them symbols of Christ’s Passion and our Redemption. I saw also palm trees and others, high and spreading which cast their branches afar, as if forming roofs.

Before the sun appeared, earthly things were puny; but in his beams they gradually increased in size, until they attained full growth.


[quote=“Techno2000, post:1057, topic:458269”]
Anne Catherine Emmerich

I looked it up and apparently

The Vatican does not endorse the authenticity of the books written by Brentano of Blessed Emmerichs visions


[quote=“timothyvail, post:1059, topic:458269, full:true”]


Since the abolition of Canon 1399 and 2318 of the former Code of Canon Law by Paul VI in AAS58 (1966) page 1186, publications about new apparitions, revelation, prophecies, miracles, etc., have been allowed to be distributed and read by the faithful without the express permission of the Church, providing that they contain nothing which contravenes faith and morals. This means, no imprimatur is necessary.

The Discernment of Visionaries and Apparitions Today by Albert J. Hebert, S.M., Page III


I will bet my bottom dollar that there was 100% consensus among the Church Fathers on the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 - ie, Adam was created instantly from inanimate matter (and was not the offspring of a pre-existing creature).

Furthermore, the seventeen books from Genesis to Esther obviously describe real, literal history. It seems might odd to me that a few sentences of it should buck the trend and be interpreted symbolically.


On the contrary, there is nothing important at all about evolution. It is nothing more than a useless, irrelevant bedtime-story invented by atheists. It’s only “use” is to make atheists feel “intellectually fulfilled”.

Re Adam:

The time that has elapsed since Adam was created/infused with a soul can be calculated from the genealogies described in the Old Testament and other sources, such as the date the Septuagint was written. Orthodox Jews calculate Adam’s creation to have occurred about 5778 years ago (which is the date that appears on the front page of several Jewish publications, ie, 5778 = 2017).

Therefore Adam didn’t live long enough down the evolutionary timeline to be the primitive moron that you suppose him to have been. Indeed, since we know that Adam lived only 5778 years ago, we can conclude that he had the intelligence of modern man. Adam’s parents, although lacking souls, would have been the same as him in every other regard, including cerebrally, so they would have had the intelligence of modern man as well. Since evolution progresses very slowly, the ancestors of Adam - going back tens of thousands of years - would also have had the same intelligence of Adam. That being so, they would have had the intelligence to develop writing and all manner of technologies - imagine what they could have achieved in fifty thousand years.

But it appears they didn’t achieve anything. In fact, there is no evidence that this race of humans ever existed. Why not? Because they didn’t exist. How come? Because evolution is a myth.


One does not have to be a young earth creationist to be a faithful Catholic. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that you won’t find more than a handful of bishops today who subscribe to the theory that Adam lived less than 6000 years ago. Catholic teaching does not teach it.


Fine, it doesn’t contravene faith or morals, and it is allowed for distribution, but that wasn’t the point. The point was whether they were accurate or authentic, which even the Vatican won’t vouch for.


If Orthodox Jews jumped off a bridge, would you too? It’s kind of funny they can calculate that, since Orthodox Jews don’t learn math and don’t teach their children math.

Too bad that current scientific facts put the human species at a lot older than 5778. There are bones of homo sapiens in America older than your supposed Orthodox Adam.

Who said they didn’t invent things, they certainly had tools. Many tribes living in remote places undisturbed for thousands of years never developed writing.

Writing and all manner of technologies is not a absolutely necessary development.

It certainly is important or we wouldn’t be having this conversation on this thread, it is the best theory to explain the unbiased data we have. Do you have a better explanation than evolution, if so, I’m sure the scientific community would love to hear it.


Regarding this subject, the scientific community has nothing of importance to say. But the theory of never-ending threads about evolution here has been shown to be true. Scientists only deal with what’s alive today. That’s all they can do.


There is no comparison to how society operates. We are talking about nature. If you were a dog and needed food, would you eat the chickens that were easy to catch or the ones that were difficult? It’s an easy answer as I’m sure you’d agree. It’s literally the survival of the fittest.

So don’t head off and try to work in social Darwinisn. We are talking just dogs and chickens. No hidden philosophical meanings here.

And I’m pretty sure that you know where the arms race between these two creatures might end up. With dogs that are much better climbers than their ancestors and chooks that can fly a lot better than theirs.

Now there is nothing I have said at any point that is any way unreasonable or can in any way be described as speciation. It is STILL dogs and chickens.

Do you abree?


Bear with me. I will respond in due course…


A brief look at any nature film showing a lion take down a gazelle will quickly falsify that claim.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit