Thanks @vjtorley and @AntoineSuarez for joining the conversation. I’m going to answer here, in a post that might bring some resolution to all this. @Agauger I hope you can take a look at this too, and let us know what you think.
Clearing Some Underbrush
Great, you accept this theologically. Good news, it is biologically possible. So, I’m going to put a pin here, and make use of this later. Do not forget that you are okay with Option 1 as a way to make sense of the rise of rational souls and the Image of God. The timing of this is not that important. Pick a time. I just does not matter from a scientific point of view, and you can use archeology to guide you (perhaps using your argument for 400 kya, or @agauger’s for 2 mya, or behaviorally modern humans 50 kya).
I think you are missing something very big here. (1) Even if there is no evidence for this, it may have still happened. (2) It would not necessarily have required a large number of new genes, but perhaps just a 10 or 20 coordinated mutations. Just because it cannot be proven does not mean it did not happen. That puts it beyond science, but we are not doing science here. We are doing, instead, science-engaged theology.
If God did, for example, miraculously give all our ancestors 400 kya a set of 10 mutations that gave them a rational soul, what would it look like today? From our point of view, these 10 mutations would appear just like the 30 to 40 million mutations that different between chimps and humans. We would have no way scientifically of separating the “signal from the noise.” A God who can raise Jesus from the dead, also, can certainly do something like this. So there is no reason for a Christian to be troubled by such an proposal. The same could have happened 2 mya ago too, in an @agauger model.
I entirely affirm methodological naturalism in scientific discourse (even though it is incorrectly named). However, this is not scientific discourse. You are doing science-engaged theology where there should be no problem with God doing things that have a large effect, but human has a hard time discerning.
Brains are material. Minds are not material, but are apparently connected to Brains. Concepts are not material, and held within Minds. There is no special challenge to a “concept of God”, any more than is there a “concept of numbers.”
I think the notion of “information” is helpful here. Information is immaterial, but is often encoded in material things. Even materialists affirm the existence of information, but (perhaps) assert it must always be encoded in material things. Materialism is not and never has been a total denial of information or numbers, etc.
This is a key point. Hold on to this. Keep in mind, also, that these rational beings would not descend from Adam. That means we agree God could have made rational creatures on this planet (or another planet, or another universe) that do not descend from Adam. This is a key point I am going to rely on soon.
You may be right, but I doubt for this reason. A non-rational Homo erectus has a different Telos than a chimp or a cat, because his descendents are destined to give rise to rational beings. This is very different than a chimp or a cat. So the analogy does not hold.
I’m not confusing the two. If a beings intrinsic Telos is to give rise to rational beings (in some ways like an embryo, but not like a sperm and egg), then it is possible that it has a rational soul that is even the top down causation of developing that rationality on a biological level. This is a minor point, because you already accept Option 1. So we can let this go, but I do want to clarify you are missing a category here. A non-rational Homo erectus is clearly different than a Chimp, because he is going to give rise to us. That gives him a very different telos, which I am arguing is not much different than an embryo.
Looping in @AntoineSuarez: Why a Single Couple Matters
Regarding the Image of God and rational souls, @AntoineSuarez, I totally agree. Monophylogeny is a sufficiently strong disputation of polygenesis, that it should be just fine to imagine that the rational souls, at some point at the past, are granted to who community by God’s miraculous work (even if it requires mutations).
However, that is not all the Catholic teaching holds important in origins. I believe, even in Catholic teaching, the reason for wanting a single couple is because fo the Fall. It is thought by most people (including Catholics I though!) that the Fall must come through one person, Adam. @vjtorley, @AntoineSuarez, and @Agauger, I’d be interested in seeing (1) if I’m misreading Catholic thought here, and/or (2) what those specific binding statements are for you.
A Catholic Genealogical Adam
So, therefore, we could take all this conversation to propose a model that, it appears, satisfies all the doctrinal constraints of Catholic thought.
First (Genesis 1), God creates all humankind, male and female, in His Image, as rational beings, with rational souls, as a community. He does this by miraculously giving all our ancestors alive at a point in history (either 400 kya or 2 mya), instantly, the genetic capacity for rationality (by putting a set of 10 to 20 key mutations instantly into their genomes), and also rational souls. To be clear, they are all Adamites in the Image of God, in that they all have the same biological type of as Adam (e.g. Homo sapiens, or Homo genus).
Second (Genesis 2), at a later time or maybe the same time (perhaps 15 kya with the rise of agriculture, or 6 kya with the rise of written language), God creates (or chooses) Adam and Eve and places them in a divine Garden. They live for a time here, but then they fall. As their offspring interbreed with others, they become ancestors of us all. In this way, they give rise to a new type of rational souls, that entirely supplants the first.
This happens quickly too, so when Scripture is given, there is no need to reference the race of Adamites that do not descend from Adam. Instead, Scripture only references the fallen descendants of Adam, all of us.
Responding to Objections
Objection 1: Beastiality, or God Imaged and ensouled people breeding with non-ensouled people. This does not apply, because (1) God makes the whole community rational at the same time, and (2) those outside the garden are souled and rational people too.
Objection 2: All men are supposed to be fallen, so Unfallen people in the distant past is a theological problem. However, we already agreed that God could have made another race of rational souls that do not descend from Adam, in the distant past, another planet, or another universe. So there is nothing any more troubling about this than life on other planets. No modifications are theology in the present day are required, because all men today are fallen.
Objection 3: This is not a scientific proposal. Of course it not. It is science engaged theology, and it might even be true. Science does not consider God’s action, but it begs the question to conclude that he did not act. We find, rather, that if God did this, we would not even be able to see evidence for (or against) it.
Objection 4: God’s Image comes through one couple, not to a population as a whole. That does not appear to be in Scripture or in Catholic teaching. Rather all the “single couple” statements are confined to the fall. Also, we’ve already agreed that Option 1 above is a viable way that the Image of God could have come instantly to a population as a whole.
Does this Work?
From what I gather, this is an entirely plausible model within a catholic context. What I have learned, however, is that much more attention to the Catholic conception of the Image of God, souls, and rationality is required. Honestly, I have learned a lot.
Do you agree that this could be a Catholic model? What remaining objections are there? How would you adjust this from here?