So if I am understanding correctly, in said case all major and accepted scientific theories concerning the descent of the current human population are wrong, and to think otherwise is to contradict the Church?
I would say you are not understanding correctly.
And here is why.
As it stands, for me, the crux of the problem lies with the nature of the argument - it is theory versus truth.
A theory - before it is proven true according to the methodology that governs it - does not contradict an established truth. Only another proven truth can contradict an established truth. Many people have graduated some scientific theories beyond the realm of possible and beyond the realm of probable and into the realm of absolute truth. This is a diploma prematurely awarded.
"in said case* all **major and accepted scientific **theories **concerning the descent of the current human population are wrong,"
*
First, I would say that these theories are not right or wrong - yet - because they are theories and remain in the process of becoming right or wrong.
Second, it is telling that there are many theories - note my added bold - and not one single theory. I say this not to emphasize ‘wrongness’ but to emphasize incompleteness. The process is still ongoing. I can imagine that when one theory is actually proven true and accepted as fact it will be just that - **one **theory that proved true and was accepted as such.
Other proofs might certainly build upon and follow.
Science admittedly self limits its methodology to the exploration material reality. And that’s fine. The Church, most philosophers and theologians do not impose a materialistic limitation on reason. As a result their reasoning* also *considers ideas that are super-natural or outside of nature or the observable material world. Because of this difference in scope it is possible for the Church to arrive at truths that are outside the materialistic parameters of science. This should not surprise anyone. This also does not automatically pit the two rational approaches into contradiction. It makes perfect sense that the scientist cannot prove there is a god using scientific methodology. It make perfect sense that faith did not lead to the discovery of penicillin.
Regarding the human origin question at hand, the Church, employing reason and Revelation, holds the common ascent of all humankind to be from a single pair of human parents - one man and one woman. Of course, science wants to know all the materialistic details, the hows, whats, whens and wheres, and there is nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of this inquiry, but it is certainly going to stretch the methodology.
In my humble non-scientific opinion, even outside of any faith considerations, it is going to be very difficult for science to prove the details of the human origin question, yea or nay, without hard evidence.
The Church promotes certain truths regarding human origins. They are based on a super-natural truth that God exists. While reason is heavily employed in this assertion, it is outside the parameters of materialistic science to verify.
It would be naive not to mention the very real desire of some to bind all reason exclusively to materialistic reality.
Just some thoughts which I hope work for clarity and not confusion.
Petek
Mid-1990s. . . archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
April Fool’s day is past.