Yet, natural selection, survival of the fitness, going from ape to man was the early popular perception of evolution. Those famous drawings showing the sequence from a hunched over ape to a hunched over person ready for death are still around. Though currently, the hunched over person is sitting at his computer.
There is a difference between what ordinary folk believe about evolution and what is actually being taught in various areas of the country. This is why learning current updated evolutionary theory is so important for those who are interested in defending Catholicism. We need not be afraid of the scientific aspects. There is no real reason to attack science. It is important to know what exactly is involved when one talks “evolutionary theory”. And we must know and comprehend the Catholic position which in some cases is very different from Creationism.
21st century evolutionary theory can be viewed in two sections. The first section is the application of evolution to non-humans such as animals, plants, bacteria, and so on. What is troubling to Catholics is the theory’s second section which is the application of evolutionary theory to human nature.
Blessings,
granny
The search for truth needs Catholicism.
But why should that be troubling? That there of remnants of God’s handiwork in the evolution to man should not be surprising. (And let’s note, some variations of evolution theory hold that there may have been several kinds of humans alive at the same time - in the (relatively) not so distant past…)
I wonder, 100 years from now, if there will be a
new human; part man, part machine, and if they will think of evolution in a whole new way - where we evolve ourselves?
Potentially scary thoughts - but thoughts that we haven’t even begun to deal with yet.
In any case - I don’t see a need for the twin creation stories to be taken literally. There are two stories, closely related, that rely on each other in many ways. They provide information that in a general way appear to be historically plausible. But they also have issues (where did Cain find his wife?)
That said, the stories become both more plausible and more understandable if they are taken as allegories.
For example:
It has been shown that complex organic molecules can be stored in clay “oil bubbles”. There is evidence that the early ocean (which was not yet salty since salt hadn’t run into the ocean to the degree it has today) had clay shores. “The research, published online this week in the journal Soft Matter, shows that clay vesicles provide an ideal container for the compartmentalization of complex organic molecules.”
What does the Bible say:
While some translations say that man came from dust, others say:
7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.
No one says how long this process took in our measurement of time. If God put complex carbon molecules into a clay bubble and let it replicate and evolve until the result was man, doesn’t this reasonably agree with this verse, when thinking in terms of a people who were technologically primitive. The most complex mathematics was basic arithmetic. The most complex tools were levers and cutting instruments. Not everyone had the use of wheels. They certainly had no context of geography, a spherical Earth in space - much less in relativistic space-time. How would YOU describe to them that God led/let man evolve from complex molecules?
We KNOW there is a “
mitochondrial Eve” from whom currently living humans evolved. (People have two sets of genetics; one set, contained in mitochondria - the fuel burning engine of a cell, is contributed ONLY by the mother. Because of this, it is possible to tell that there was an original mother.) There was also a
Y-chromosomal Adam - this chromosone is passed only by the father. So it is possible to tell that there is a male from whom all living people are likely descended.
However, this Eve, and this Adam did not live at the same time. Nor were they they ONLY man and only woman around. But, if we take the story as an allegory, this may not be a big issue.
Alternatively, while this Eve and Adam represent our common (ultimate) matrilineal and patrilineal ancestor, they don’t represent our most recent common ancestor. So, perhaps there is a MORE RECENT common ancestor (even as recent as 5,000 years ago) from whom all humans derive.
The fact that Adam and Eve are SET APART from any other “possible humans” (or near humans) is enough for the allegory to work. It doesn’t require being defended to the most minute detail.
