As you’ve been so often reminded, it does not intend to. It assumes living things, and explains how they change over time. You might as well rail against chemistry for not saying how matter originated.
My memory, so faulty at times, tells me that the theory of evolution begins with chemicals(?) forming the first cell singular. But that sounds too simplistic especially when the above uses living things in the plural.
This is from my imagination. If there were a variety of components that were capable of being nudged into life, there could be a variety of ways, the components could be arranged even including some, excluding others. Thus, there could be a variety of first cells, or a variety of first common ancestors.
Now my imagination skips to another discussion in which the word deception was used in that if human beings were created separately, the fact that we share genomes with other animals would be God’s way of deceiving us. One of the first things I learned in P.R. is how to interpret the same fact six ways to Sunday. So, let’s say that this idea of deception is only one of possible interpretations. Let’s look at the similar genomes as well as similar functions as examples of how we are in union with the rest of creation.
If the “unity” of creation is part of Thomistic thought, this might be a way of using it as evidence of an intelligent cause. Somewhere I read that unity, beauty are spiritual ways to find God.
God’s creation is a unit in which all things connect in some way.
Evidence is interdisciplinary search for knowledge. Also, there is a Thomistic concept that created things can exist or not exist. Theologically speaking, is God considered one being?
As far as unity, God’s creation of natural life such as polar bears, slugs, and dinosaurs does not present a problem since they are intrinsically part of the universe. Humanity presents a problem in that God created us to be with Him forever. Thus, we needed to have a supernatural nature, in other words, there is something about our being that is totally different from the rest of life. This idea can work in reverse in that it is observable that we are very different from the rest of life; therefore, our nature includes supernatural or spiritual.
If humanity were totally different from the rest of life, i.e., the first cell or first common ancestor was of material singularly and totally different from everything else, the unity of the creation would disappear from our observation. Let’s not get into the discussion that God can do anything. Let’s stick with the Thomistic idea that humanity observes nature in order to find its cause.
We share a lot with other animals in that we eat, sleep and love the opposite sex. Furthermore we use nature, water, plants, animals as nourishment. All this shows that we are not aliens but that our being is related to the rest of the world. It is reasonable to say that we come from the same created material as the universe. Didn’t some writer say that humans were formed from “clay” which could be a figurative, literal, or poetic source word indicating the unity of creation by one Intelligent Cause?
Now, please return to the top of this post – and consider the first origins of life. As long as TOE does not intend to treat the “origin” of life, we are perfectly free to give a reasonable theory for it. Personally, I like the idea of first cells or first common ancestors getting together. It demonstrates the huge intelligence of the Creator. Here is my imaginative scenario. At the very beginning of life, a particular combination was given the ability to accept a soul. The operative word is ability. It is this ability which distinguishes it from the rest of life. This ability is a key to the differences between humans and animals today. Thus, we can work backwards from the observable differences to conclude that something, I use the word ability, existed from the beginning. Maybe a scientist would call it suppressed genes.
This something, ability, suppressed genes, spiritual component indicates that the actual procreation of the early humans can be different from the rest of nature while retaining the similarities because of the principle of unity. The obvious question is that if early humans procreated in a different way, why did that rate change? The answer is in current biological
studies on genetic shift, founder effect, traumatic changes of environment, chance, natural selection, etc. which demonstrate various ways and reasons for mutation of genes, etc. Maybe there was planned obsolescence. Also from current evolutionary biology studies, when one looks at certain birds or reptiles, one should remember that their ancestors were dinosaurs.
Perhaps the above can help you in your OP search. The point would be that unity, which includes both evolutionary progress and the non-physical soul, would lead to an extremely Intelligent Being, one not limited by created matter so that it can be the First cause of both the natural and the supernatural.
Blessings,
granny
The universe and all humanity are a joy to behold.
