“Evolution under the influence of natural selection leads to adoptive improvement […] Even creatures as different as they say, snails and monkeys, are derived from ancestors who originally diverged from a single species in a speciation event (the process whereby one species split into two).”
That is how practically in simple terms Dawkins explicated Darwin’s theory of evolution which in such seemingly contrasting species such as snails and monkeys are claimed to have the same origins. Then, how much more between humans and chimpanzees for example?
That claim had caused a great turbulence for the whole humanity. It sure is preposterous but for me I do not really mind being related with the apes as long as there are sufficient facts that supports the claim. Because whether like it or not, if the facts provide for the truth so be it. And indeed, Darwin provided much evidences and even after his death there had been various key contribution provided, one would be Gregor Mendel’s notion on genetics that genes are not a blending process but particulate. This saved Darwin’s theory from his worry with the predominant notion of blending at that time. Hence, the evolution theory had become a scientific orthodoxy.
On the other side, this theory inevitably incites the conservative nature of our tradition as Catholic Church. It is directly attacking the scripture, “we are created in the image and likeness of God.”
But for me I do not think that we need to conflict these ideas as long as we do our best to find solutions that would reconcile our scientific discovery from our faith, because if we only subscribe to a one side part of a story then we would not be able to look at the greater view of the picture. We would be choked with our own narrow and naïve mindedness. I’m not saying that the scriptures are not sufficient truth but even if our faith tells us the bible is the ultimate truth but what if it is utterly in contradict with the world. For example, the scripture mentions of the sun revolving around the earth— “geocentric” — until it could no longer hold the weight of the real truth of the matter that it eventually admitted the heliocentric of Copernicus. Or else, honestly, our Church itself will be the cause for our stagnation. Hence, it is just a matter of evidence that we are actually waiting for.
Having said that, how could we possibly reconcile Darwin’s theory with the creation of God. I have this mind a lecture from our philosophy of science with Fr. Rhanie. It was a discussion about process philosophy. That according to Whitehead, God as the ultimate qualifier gave the ongoingness—creative but at the same time chaotic because there is no order yet—nature of the world the initial aim in order for all entities to achieve their full value— that is why a fish cell will be developed according to having its ordered features so we shouldn’t expect a fish to have a human fingers or the leaf of a mango because it is against its initial aim— Moreover, he said that with these initial aims we are able to realized our potentials but even as well limited or ordered to. Like, as a human person I have potentials to become a priest, doctor, teacher, but its not my potential to become a tree or a dog. There are limitations to what we could become. However, as much as God gave all entities the initial aim, Whitehead says in spite of the initial aim, each of these entities still has their own subjective aim or like free choice. Fr. Rhanie’s example was, the cell curtails its initial aim of being good cell but rather cancerous to the body, or cases wherein we have inborn babies with distorted or amputated limbs or etc. because he says their cells or genes did not follow their original initial aim provided by God but proceeded with their own subjective aims.
My point is, what if we could utilize these other perspectives to account for what it is. What if this is how the creation went through? Because at the end of it all, it still goes to the One and the same Creator? Would that still be a problem of faith?
So, what if the subjective aim is the reason for the evolutional process, the natural selection or the mutation of genes in the gene pool? Again, we could still be “created in the image and likeness of God”, it was just that, it was only eventually realized in the process of evolution from the same origins with the apes? Or who knows the image of God? Isn’t he an initial aim Himself (if we accept this fact) just like us in the beginning of time? If so, then, that is how we should account for the “image and likeness thing” (initial aim=initial aim)? Or if not, what if, we are actually the ones who are in the right tract as compared to the apes because we achieved greater potentials than them? This is also saying that, it is a potential to become a cyborg because who knows what the end of our potentials are but only until we realized it ourselves? So and so…
But at the end, these are just my thoughts for the matter of the article.