Theistic Evolution: The parents of Adam & Eve

[Justin Martyr]

Art. 2: Whether all these days are one day?

OBJ 1: It would seem that all these days are one day. For it is written (Gn. 2:4,5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord . . . made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field, before it sprung up in the earth." Therefore the day in which God made "the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field," is one and the same day. But He made the heaven and the earth on the first day, or rather before there was any day, but the plant of the field He made on the third day. Therefore the first and third days are but one day, and for a like reason all the rest.

OBJ 2: Further, it is said (Ecclus. 18:1): "He that liveth for ever, created all things together." But this would not be the case if the days of these works were more than one. Therefore they are not many but one only.

OBJ 3: Further, on the seventh day God ceased from all new works. If, then, the seventh day is distinct from the other days, it follows that He did not make that day; which is not admissible.

OBJ 4: Further, the entire work ascribed to one day God perfected in an instant, for with each work are the words (God) "said . . . . and it was . . . done." If, then, He had kept back His next work to another day, it would follow that for the remainder of a day He would have ceased from working and left it vacant, which would be superfluous. The day, therefore, of the preceding work is one with the day of the work that follows.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1), "The evening and the morning were the second day . . . the third day," and so on. But where there is a second and third there are more than one. There was not, therefore, only one day.

I answer that, On this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22; De Civ. Dei xi, 9; Ad Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only. Now, these two opinions, taken as explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely different. For Augustine understands by the word "day," the knowledge in the mind of the angels, and hence, according to him, the first day denotes their knowledge of the first of the Divine works, the second day their knowledge of the second work, and similarly with the rest. Thus, then, each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge thereof on the angelic mind; which can know many things at the same time, especially in the Word, in Whom all angelic knowledge is perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the natural order of the things known, and not a succession in the knowledge acquired, or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic knowledge is appropriately called "day," since light, the cause of day, is to be found in spiritual things, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. iv, 28). In the opinion of the others, however, the days signify a succession both in time, and in the things produced.

If, however, these two explanations are looked at as referring to the mode of production, they will be found not greatly to differ, if the diversity of opinion existing on two points, as already shown (Q[67], A[1]; Q[69], A[1]), between Augustine and other writers is taken into account. First, because Augustine takes the earth and the water as first created, to signify matter totally without form; but the making of the firmament, the gathering of the waters, and the appearing of dry land, to denote the impression of forms upon corporeal matter. But other holy writers take the earth and the water, as first created, to signify the elements of the universe themselves existing under the proper forms, and the works that follow to mean some sort of distinction in bodies previously existing, as also has been shown (Q[67], AA[1],4; Q[69], A[1] ). Secondly, some writers hold that plants and animals were produced actually in the work of the six days; Augustine, that they were produced potentially. Now the opinion of Augustine, that the works of the six days were simultaneous, is consistent with either view of the mode of production. For the other writers agree with him that in the first production of things matter existed under the substantial form of the elements, and agree with him also that in the first instituting of the world animals and plants did not exist actually. There remains, however, a difference as to four points; since, according to the latter, there was a time, after the production of creatures, in which light did not exist, the firmament had not been formed, and the earth was still covered by the waters, nor had the heavenly bodies been formed, which is the fourth difference; which are not consistent with Augustine's explanation. In order, therefore, to be impartial, we must meet the arguments of either side.

Reply OBJ 1: On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. And this work Augustine ascribes to the third day, but other writers to the first instituting of the world.

Reply OBJ 2: God created all things together so far as regards their substance in some measure formless. But He did not create all things together, so far as regards that formation of things which lies in distinction and adornment. Hence the word "creation" is significant.

Reply OBJ 3: On the seventh day God ceased from making new things, but not from providing for their increase, and to this latter work it belongs that the first day is succeeded by other days.

Reply OBJ 4: All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection.

Reply OBJ 5: According to Augustine, the order of days refers to the natural order of the works attributed to the days.

[Stanley]

I cited the other Thomists as good sources to get introduced to the metaphysical principles.

Cute. What credentials do you have in Thomism or philosophy? MA? PHB? PHL?

Demanding credentials is the response of a man who has no argument. I could have all the credentials in the world, or none, and it would not effect the argument. The devil is quite "cultured" and "credentialed" himself, after all.

You provided "sources" for me to get "introduced" to metaphysics. You brought credentials into this.

Your discussion of "kinds" was a distraction, basically a proxy for "I don't believe evolution can work that far, no matter the evidence". You also appear to confuse a stableness of form for an individual living thing with the inability of one species to arise from another. The latter was acknowledged even by St. Thomas, who I take for granted understood his philosophy better than either of us ever could.

\Providentissumus Deus, #19

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56)

[Justin Martyr]

I cited the other Thomists as good sources to get introduced to the metaphysical principles.

Cute. What credentials do you have in Thomism or philosophy? MA? PHB? PHL?

Demanding credentials is the response of a man who has no argument. I could have all the credentials in the world, or none, and it would not effect the argument. The devil is quite "cultured" and "credentialed" himself, after all.

You provided "sources" for me to get "introduced" to metaphysics. You brought credentials into this.

I was citing them in case you were unfamiliar with the terms. Otherwise you wouldn't understand the argument and the whole conversation would be pointless. Evidently my choice was justified, since you still haven't grasped that I'm using the word "kind" to mean "a group of individual creatures that share the same substantial form."

Your discussion of "kinds" was a distraction, basically a proxy for "I don't believe evolution can work that far, no matter the evidence". You also appear to confuse a stableness of form for an individual living thing with the inability of one species to arise from another. The latter was acknowledged even by St. Thomas, who I take for granted understood his philosophy better than either of us ever could.

It's not a "distraction".

Major: An effect can not be greater than its cause.
Minor: Creatures are only capable of accidental causation.
Minor: A substantial change/effect is greater than an accidental cause.
Conclusion: One creature can not evolve into another, barring God changing the substance of its offspring into another.

Which  premise do you take umbridge with, or do you accept the conclusion? I reject God working a constant series of miracles in order to evolve one substantial form into another because 1. Its occasionalism, 2. He has no need to, and 3. It goes against the literal sense of Genesis.

Providentissumus Deus, #19

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."(56)

And...? My whole argument was that the Fathers were unanimously teaching creationism as of Faith. I understand how the Consensus Patrum works.

[Stanley]

you still haven't grasped that I'm using the word "kind" to mean "a group of individual creatures that share the same substantial form."

My experience is that when someone uses "kind" in a discussion of evolution, it's a proxy. If "kind" is thought to be embodied as species, it means "I don't believe evolution between species can happen". Then when evolution between species is shown, "kind" means a group. Then when evolution between groups is shown, "kind" means a family. And so on. It's a moving goalpost.

It could be that all animals are one kind, in which case evolution within a kind would be just evolution.

Major: An effect can not be greater than its cause.

Is a bird "greater" than a dinosaur (therapod)? To the extent that question even has meaning in contemporary science (which usually ignores 2 of the causes), I think the answer would be no. And in natural philosophy, they're both animals.

And...? My whole argument was that the Fathers were unanimously teaching creationism as of Faith.

They agreed on creation, but they didn't agree on "creationism".

[Justin Martyr]

you still haven't grasped that I'm using the word "kind" to mean "a group of individual creatures that share the same substantial form."

My experience is that when someone uses "kind" in a discussion of evolution, it's a proxy. If "kind" is thought to be embodied as species, it means "I don't believe evolution between species can happen". Then when evolution between species is shown, "kind" means a group. Then when evolution between groups is shown, "kind" means a family. And so on. It's a moving goalpost.

Tell ya what, I will ditch the word kind. From here on out I'm just going to use "substantial form". Its essentially what I meant anyway.

It could be that all animals are one kind, in which case evolution within a kind would be just evolution.

Honest question: what do you understand the phrase "substantial form" to mean?

Major: An effect can not be greater than its cause.

Is a bird "greater" than a dinosaur (therapod)? To the extent that question even has meaning in contemporary science (which usually ignores 2 of the causes), I think the answer would be no. And in natural philosophy, they're both animals.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The argument wasn't that X animal is greater than Y therefore Y can't give rise to X. The argument was that all procreation is a type of accidental causation, where a like substance begets a like substance. Since accidental causation can only result in a change of accidents, it's not possible for it to cause a substantial change; as an effect can not be greater than its cause. God is the only substantial cause, and only God can produce substantial effects.

And...? My whole argument was that the Fathers were unanimously teaching creationism as of Faith.

They agreed on creation, but they didn't agree on "creationism".

I believe on this point we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Stanley]

Tell ya what, I will ditch the word kind. From here on out I'm just going to use "substantial form". Its essentially what I meant anyway.

That would still beg the question at what level of universals is "substantial form" supposedly ruling out evolution.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The argument wasn't that X animal is greater than Y therefore Y can't give rise to X. The argument was that all procreation is a type of accidental causation, where a like substance begets a like substance. Since accidental causation can only result in a change of accidents, it's not possible for it to cause a substantial change; as an effect can not be greater than its cause. God is the only substantial cause, and only God can produce substantial effects.

You appear to be ruling out substantial change without the special intervention of God.

Hydrogen and oxygen can get together and generate a substance unlike themselves.

[Justin Martyr]

Tell ya what, I will ditch the word kind. From here on out I'm just going to use "substantial form". Its essentially what I meant anyway.

That would still beg the question at what level of universals is "substantial form" supposedly ruling out evolution.

Are you a nominalist? Universals aren't just names. Evolution becomes metaphysically impossible is the level of substance. We know the substances of things by means of the substantial forms. There are only 4 "levels" by which all of reality is condivided: Accident in Potency, Substance in Potency, Accident in Act, and Substance in Act.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. The argument wasn't that X animal is greater than Y therefore Y can't give rise to X. The argument was that all procreation is a type of accidental causation, where a like substance begets a like substance. Since accidental causation can only result in a change of accidents, it's not possible for it to cause a substantial change; as an effect can not be greater than its cause. God is the only substantial cause, and only God can produce substantial effects.

You appear to be ruling out substantial change without the special intervention of God.

Hydrogen and oxygen can get together and generate a substance unlike themselves.

First, I'm not an empiricist. Citing particulars against proven metaphysical principles is to no avail; for principles are metaphysically certain, all empirical data is only morally certain.

I already quoted Saint Thomas' refutation of this. When compound substances like mules are created, they already exist potentially in the substances that they are reduced to act from.

This still does not allow for evolution, however, because evolution as typically defined is the creation of entirely new substances ("kinds") by means of two creatures which share the same substance procreating together, with natural selection slowly altering the nature of the offspring over aeons. This is what I called metaphysically impossible. It violates at least three axioms: like begets like, you can not give what you do not have, and the effect can not be greater than its cause.

This is different than the creation of a compound substance, since compound substances are transferred from potency to act by the mixing of two different substances which already potentially contain the compound substance within their own substance.

Please, read the quote below carefully.

Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning. Again, animals of new kinds arise occasionally from the connection of individuals belonging to different species, as the mule is the offspring of an ass and a mare; but even these existed previously in their causes, in the works of the six days. Some also existed beforehand by way of similitude, as the souls now created. And the work of the Incarnation itself was thus foreshadowed, for as we read (Phil. 2:7), The Son of God "was made in the likeness of men." And again, the glory that is spiritual was anticipated in the angels by way of similitude; and that of the body in the heaven, especially the empyrean. Hence it is written (Eccles. 1:10), "Nothing under the sun is new, for it hath already gone before, in the ages that were before us."

[TerrorDæmonum]

Stanley and Justin Maryr, you are both professing the same faith it seems and have disagreements on this matter, which is not an article of faith.

Whether or not the worldly science is accurately describing what appears to have happened or not, it really does not matter. Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but verisimilitude. Every scientific breakthrough is subject to revision, refinement, and even replacement. The map is not the territory and the models used in the natural sciences are only as useful as they are.

Whether looking at creation would show a spontaneous and complete springing into existence of everything in situ or not does not matter.

This matter of creation is not really a matter of faith. The first thing I learned was:

1. Who made us?

God made us.

Exactly how does not matter. Learning how humans procreate did not cause me to question this or deny anything, and that is ultimately what this question is about: exactly how many ancestors do we have and exactly what did things look like for Adam? Those are questions of philosophical inquiry, but we can be sure what we need to know is known.

Those are confused by the natural sciences are so by choice probably: the matters of the world are not known for certain even on things we think we understand and that is alright because they are not ultimately important.

If evolution is true, why does the Bible give no explicit indication?  Why does the Word of God appear so contradictory to this theory?  Why did even Catholic bishops and theologians embrace creationism?

These are questions for theistic evolutionists.  This thread assumes, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true.  And if it is, then why did God, who is omnipotent and can see the future, inspire a creation account that causes so much confusion and division in the Body of Christ?

The scriptures were written at different times and first read by different people. The earliest writings are definitely written to avoid encouraging idolatry. The creation of angels and their very existence was very much glossed over.

If we want to use Genesis to support or deny particular scientific theories based on reason and empiricism, we will probably fail, because people can support or deny anything they want.

Exactly how human biology and reproduction worked was not understood for a long time, even into the modern period, and this led to interesting statements. Worldly knowledge is important to a degree, but it is not most important, and obtaining worldly knowledge is done by human means: reason and the senses.

So we can be sure what know what is most important and we must keep a very ordered perspective. Biology and cosmology are not at all matters of faith, and Divine Revelation is not concerned with such things.

[Justin Martyr]

Stanley and Justin Maryr, you are both professing the same faith it seems and have disagreements on this matter, which is not an article of faith.

Whether or not the worldly science is accurately describing what appears to have happened or not, it really does not matter. Scientists aren't concerned with truth, but verisimilitude. Every scientific breakthrough is subject to revision, refinement, and even replacement. The map is not the territory and the models used in the natural sciences are only as useful as they are.

Whether looking at creation would show a spontaneous and complete springing into existence of everything in situ or not does not matter.

This matter of creation is not really a matter of faith. The first thing I learned was:

1. Who made us?

God made us.

Exactly how does not matter. Learning how humans procreate did not cause me to question this or deny anything, and that is ultimately what this question is about: exactly how many ancestors do we have and exactly what did things look like for Adam? Those are questions of philosophical inquiry, but we can be sure what we need to know is known.

Those are confused by the natural sciences are so by choice probably: the matters of the world are not known for certain even on things we think we understand and that is alright because they are not ultimately important.

If evolution is true, why does the Bible give no explicit indication?  Why does the Word of God appear so contradictory to this theory?  Why did even Catholic bishops and theologians embrace creationism?

These are questions for theistic evolutionists.  This thread assumes, for the sake of argument, that evolution is true.  And if it is, then why did God, who is omnipotent and can see the future, inspire a creation account that causes so much confusion and division in the Body of Christ?

The scriptures were written at different times and first read by different people. The earliest writings are definitely written to avoid encouraging idolatry. The creation of angels and their very existence was very much glossed over.

If we want to use Genesis to support or deny particular scientific theories based on reason and empiricism, we will probably fail, because people can support or deny anything they want.

Exactly how human biology and reproduction worked was not understood for a long time, even into the modern period, and this led to interesting statements. Worldly knowledge is important to a degree, but it is not most important, and obtaining worldly knowledge is done by human means: reason and the senses.

So we can be sure what know what is most important and we must keep a very ordered perspective. Biology and cosmology are not at all matters of faith, and Divine Revelation is not concerned with such things.

A thoughtful post, Joseph. I believe the discussion has shifted to dealing entirely with whether the scientific theory of evolution is metaphysically possible, or if it should be rejected a priori on the basis of metaphysical impossibility. I take the latter position, which is also the position of Fr. Ripperger. Perhaps it would be better to make a new thread on the topic in the Sacred Sciences subforum. I'll wait and see what Stanley thinks.

[TerrorDæmonum]

A thoughtful post, Joseph. I believe the discussion has shifted to dealing entirely with whether the scientific theory of evolution is metaphysically possible, or if it should be rejected a priori on the basis of metaphysical impossibility. I take the latter position, which is also the position of Fr. Ripperger.

Thank you. The original question of this thread, posted in 2014, was specifically asking theistic evolutionists to resolve why divinely inspired writing resulted in confusion in our modern day.

The answer is simple: because those confused are so because they have ultimately chosen to be confused. This is not anything to do with God, scripture, Genesis or science: one could do this with any matter of scientific inquiry if one chose. 

Perhaps it would be better to make a new thread on the topic in the Sacred Sciences subforum. I'll wait and see what Stanley thinks.

Maybe, but I am not sure what the discussion is. It is very much like Dominicans and Jesuits arguing about grace, freewill, and predestination. They each view the other has making some unacceptable compromise. Who is right? The Church decided, and I think that was a wise way to resolve a question that ultimately is concerned with something we currently have no means of fully understanding or knowing.

Grace is a matter of the mystery of God, and the details of creation are a matter of the mystery of time and space.

I do have views on both of these questions, and I could argue for them well I think, but the point is that we must keep a perspective on that these questions should not cause actual division or suspicion of grave error, no matter how one is convinced of one's right view. I don't want to pretend to be above the conversion or dismissing the sides: I could take part if I chose.

I would also point out that evolutionary biology and cosmology and physics have a lot of unresolved and open questions and problems, so to refute them is somewhat pointless, as they could refute themselves in the future. Cosmology could be completely rewritten, just as classical mechanics was, to make it more true to describe what is observed.

The same could go for many many matters of science that are investigating the most ancient of days to the beginning of the universe. These models are very much subject to revision.

[Stanley]

First, I'm not an empiricist. Citing particulars against proven metaphysical principles is to no avail; for principles are metaphysically certain, all empirical data is only morally certain.

If someone claims X goes against "proven metaphysical principles", and I look around in reality and see X, reality wins.

I already quoted Saint Thomas' refutation of this. When compound substances like mules are created, they already exist potentially in the substances that they are reduced to act from.

"Refutation"? You use that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

If new substances or species can exist potentially in other substances or species, evolution is not "metaphysically impossible".

[Justin Martyr]

First, I'm not an empiricist. Citing particulars against proven metaphysical principles is to no avail; for principles are metaphysically certain, all empirical data is only morally certain.

If someone claims X goes against "proven metaphysical principles", and I look around in reality and see X, reality wins.

Then I am afraid our paradigms are too different for discussion on this topic to be fruitful at this time. It would be necessary to discuss fundementals, presuppositions, and paradigm level questions first.

If new substances or species can exist potentially in other substances or species, evolution is not "metaphysically impossible".

Already addressed why this does not follow:

This still does not allow for evolution, however, because evolution as typically defined is the creation of entirely new substances ("kinds") by means of two creatures which share the same substance procreating together, with natural selection slowly altering the nature of the offspring over aeons. This is what I called metaphysically impossible. It violates at least three axioms: like begets like, you can not give what you do not have, and the effect can not be greater than its cause.

This is different than the creation of a compound substance, since compound substances are transferred from potency to act by the mixing of two different substances which already potentially contain the compound substance within their own substance.

[Mono no aware]

Biology and cosmology are not at all matters of faith, and Divine Revelation is not concerned with such things.

Biology does infringe on matters of faith.  The doctrine of original sin speaks of it being a hereditary stain, and heredity is a facet of biology.  Similarly, DNA modelling (a sub-discipline of biology) has it that there was never a human population bottleneck of two persons; yet the belief that there was a singular first pair is a tenet of faith.

The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Biology does infringe on matters of faith.  The doctrine of original sin speaks of it being a hereditary stain, and heredity is a facet of biology.  Similarly, DNA modelling (a sub-discipline of biology) has it that there was never a human population bottleneck of two persons; yet the belief that there was a singular first pair is a tenet of faith.

Would not this biological analysis make a lot of assumptions that simply are impossible to verify? Who says Adam and Eve would appear to be just another ancestor? Remember, scripture describes their existence as being very different from what we would recognize. Who knows what we are missing and what was lost?

This is why I compare attempting to analyze the past like trying to reconstruct a structure by its scattered ashes. We can see something was there, but there is no way to know all the details, even big ones.

The disorder that sin caused would result in a state that would be difficult to reverse, as any such reversal of entropy.

Just read Genesis again and see that:

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. [20] And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living.

And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them. And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Remember:

What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: And hast set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea. O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth!

Our current perception is that humans are little more than beasts, but why would humans be created a "little less than the angels" if we are not? We should not underestimate the  effects of original sin.

The disorder we exist with for now is far more profound than we may imagine.

[Mono no aware]

Would not this biological analysis make a lot of assumptions that simply are impossible to verify? Who says Adam and Eve would appear to be just another ancestor? Remember, scripture describes their existence as being very different from what we would recognize. Who knows what we are missing and what was lost?

I don't know what is missing or lost.  All I can tell you is what Pius XII said, and that was that Adam and Eve were the sole first pair and the progenitors of all humanity.  That is a statement which impinges on biology.  I am not a molecular biologist, but I do understand common ancestry, and I know what population bottlenecks are and how they affect genetics.  Analyzing the past may indeed be like "trying to reconstruct a structure by its scattered ashes," but I have sufficient confidence in the science of DNA modeling to understand that the genetic range of humans today could not have been arrived at in the span of five thousand years from a population of 8 Middle Easterners.

I offered that point in a discussion with a creationist once, and she said, "well, how do you know the wives of the sons of Noah weren't Asian and African and Aztec?"  And I said, "do you not see how you've made this even more challenging for your side?  Instead of it taking five thousand years from a population of 8, you are now saying it took only two thousand years from a population of 2."  In the end she decided she wasn't interested in discussing it in terms of genetics, which were all bunkum to her basically.