My family has sent me some Young Earth Creationist materials (they are evangelicals, which is how I was raised prior to becoming Catholic). At one point I was under the impression that Catholics had some freedom in this realm to believe in either evolution or creationism, which in my mind equated to a difference between uniformitarianism and special creation, where the crux of the matter was the age of the earth.
After doing some more research, it seems that a few noteworthy Catholic apologists are somewhat hostile to the Young Earth view. They seem to look down on Catholics who hold this view. Here is an example:
“Now consider advocates of a young earth. They claim the earth is only 6,000 years old. If so, for the Grand Canyon to be as deep as it is, it would have to have been worn away not at one inch per century but at 920 inches per century. In those century-old photos, instead of trails with no apparent change, we should see trails entirely washed away, not a trace left. But that is not what has happened.”
However, this particular argument seems to suggest that the author isn’t familiar with the Young Earth position on geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. The author seems to assume uniformitarian mechanisms, meaning there is a constant rate of erosion. The Young Earth position is that a catastrophic event caused the Grand Canyon. It seems the author is unfamiliar with the Young Earth position.
First question: Does the reason that many Catholic apologists look down upon Young Earth Catholics as rubes have more to do with Young Earth arguments originating in Protestant, specifically evangelical circles?
Second question: If some form of theistic evolution is true, at what point in man’s ancestry is it believed that he was given a soul?