But then again their never was a first two, evolutionnary theory renders this impossible, their was a first group of hominids that exibited the characterictics of the genre homo sapien but never a first two. What about the neanderthals? they also had this intellect, recent findings even show that they were not that different from us homo sapiens, infact its even possible that we may have interbreeded with us at some point, why did God make them go brutally extinct? Also what is exculsive to human intellect? Is it morality? Chimps, it was shown can have a notion of right and wrong. I think that mabe the fall was not a litteral fal, that is that we must take it as a methaphor or something… but im not satisfied with this.
You’re misunderstanding the concept of a first two.
Not the first two to display hominid characteristics, but rather the first two that God chose to impart a soul onto. One is determined by evolution, the other by God. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, it has to do with the soul.
We do not know at what point in history God chose to impart this gift. It may have been just prior to the evolution of neanderthals, we won’t know until we ask Him. Also, why do you say brutally extinct. They were wiped out by superior genes (possibly, this is not actually the overriding theory. Rather, a mix of a wide range of stimuli that resulted in the end of the pre-homo sapien humans) just as occurs in our time. People (generally) seek to breed with those who will produce viable, intelligent, strong offspring, as such a group of hominids emerged who were more adept, and therefore took mastery over the others. I don’t see where this contradicts God giving us a soul and us rejecting Him.
What is exclusive to human intellect is the capacity to reason, and knowledge of Good and Evil. Humans Know that something is wrong because it has been imprinted on our soul. Animals do not. This is the same argument to be used against people who say taht homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature. Cannibalism, murder, infanticide and other activities that are morally objectionable to humans also occur in nature. Animals do not possess rational souls and therefor CANNOT know the difference between Good an Evil, therefore their actions have no morality attached to them.
The fall, as stated, was a conscientious choice to reject God. We cannot know what form that rejection took because we cannot look into the past, but we accept it as a matter of faith that there was a rejection, and that rejection is what is known as original sin.
Keep in mind, the Biblical account of the fall is likely a metaphor used to describe an event which is, honestly, outside of human understanding, as is much of Genesis. People at the time couldn’t comprehend of the processes used to create teh Earth, so God informed them in a fashion which allowed them to acknowledge the miracle for what it is, God’s work, regardless of means or method.
(Again, please keep in mind that we won’t really know until we’re dead. For all i know, the Biblical account could be 100% accurate. I do not believe this because the rationality God has given me, and the science that this rationality has created, has found significant evidence to the contrary. This does not undermine God, but rather it helps us to understand Him and His creation, which is the true purpose of science.)
The catechism teaches us that we as Catholics, are free to believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story or view it as a symbolic story** IF **we believe that a some point in human history humans were endowed with a soul and made a conscious decision to turn against God (original sin).
