Theological Dialogue 8.5: A Brief Commentary

*This response was written by one of my students as commentary regarding the previous post: Theological Dialogue 8. It is some well thought out work, and I wanted to share it. My answer to his response follows.

Dear Mr. Degitis,

I read your responses to the questions and have some responses of my own. Enjoy.

1.

If you are going to argue that an animal such as a panda abandoning its young is excusable because of the lack of a soul, then how is the one child policy and the killing of female children in China in favor of male children in order to provide more opportunities for their children explainable? This would be an extremely wicked act and thus, based on the panda example, would mean that morality isn't innate or that humans don't have souls. Alternatively, this could mean that pandas have souls.

I think the ease people have in denouncing the possibility of animals having soul lies in the ignorance of human cruelty. Humans are the only creatures which would enslave an entire species (chickens) and force them to spend their lives immobile, crammed together, inside a building perpetually filled with around 3 feet of their own fecal matter, and then using them as nothing more than food. This really isn't any less cruel than what the wasp does. And yet this behavior feeds millions and greatly helps to sustain the species (similar to the wasp). Additionally, from an outsiders perspective the human race would be seen as mere beasts considering we are the only species which kills its own kind on such a grand scale (through war, terrorism, etc). These actions could all be seen as a means of survival of the race but not as moral actions.

2.

You stated that you believe evolution was not totally random, but this was already common knowledge because random evolution contradicts the very process of evolution through natural selection which is the most common type. Evolution is the gradual selection of beneficial traits to the continuation of a species. In some rare occasions evolution can be random when there is little to no competition whether it be from predators, resources, or other members of the species. Several sources tell us that this could not have been the case during the process of the evolution of the human race. With this knowledge, we can tell that evolution's lack of a random pattern is explainable by the natural course of evolution rather than a puppet master controlling it. Additionally, the genes in a single celled organism are not useless, they provide the information for the creation of the organelle within the cells and the ability of cellular reproduction. Genes also have a use in multicellular organisms, but aren't useless in single celled organisms. Finally, how did God not correct his plan if he created humans without souls initially and then gave them souls? Why not create them with souls initially if that was actually his plan?

You stated that God perfectly timed the creation of life, but life in the form of single celled organisms were around for millions (and possibly billions) of years before they began to evolve. This would suggest that God's timing was not so perfect after all, because life had to wait for quite some time before it could really start evolving. Additionally, if God didn't set things up from the get-go, why does the bible pretty plainly state that he did? If it is because the Genisis story is not to be taken literally but figuratively instead, why then should we take the gospels for their word directly?

The statistical probability of each person as an individual existing is very low even if we just look at the process of conception. However this low statistical probability is just the result of an evolutionary advantage. In terms of life existing as a whole, it is maybe not so unlikely as it may seem. With the vast amount of matter existing within the universe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and with recent research showing the relative ease with which life can spontaneously be created, it is probable that life does exist elsewhere.

Thanks.

As I noted in class earlier: This is the critical thinking that I am looking for. Impressive. However, I think you have somewhat misunderstood my commentary on the amoral nature of... nature. I don't know that I am so much excusing the actions of the Giant Panda because that would require that the actions needed to be excused, but instead, I am noting that based on the fact that morality does not seep into nature, these action are neither moral or immoral, they are without morality in their totality. The panda, the wasp, the fungus, none of these things need be justified because they are not held to a moral standard. Their job is to survive, and they are doing simply that. And there in lies the difference. Humanity is held to a moral standard. For this reason, China's choice to implement a strict one child policy, and the wickedness that stemmed from that, is absolutely unacceptable. Yes, in some ways, the laws were put into place with survival and the preservation of resources in mind, but, as noted in an earlier response, we have evolved beyond that. We are no longer mere animals contending for survival, so actions that are entirely driven by that notion are not necessarily acceptable. Ultimately, the two events (pandas and people in china) are not analogous.Furthermore, just because humans do not behave morally, that does not mean that morality is not innate, nor does it indicate that humans do not have a soul. We commit horrible actions in spite of these things. There exists a deep seated knowledge of right and wrong; we just do not always succeed in choosing right. Animals outside of the human race do not operate along the same lines. Their limited free-will does not center around right and wrong but rather survival or the lack thereof. 

Additionally, I couldn't agree more. If viewed from the outside, humanity's actions would be absolutely horrifying. Wars, terrorism, these are misguided actions that can not be justified. That is not to say there isn't reason for them, but the two notions are not one in the same. 

Furthermore, in response to you last assertions, you are somewhat arguing semantics. Evolution as a whole may not be "random" in that it is based on mutations favored in a particular habitat, but even that notion requires a random mutating of genes, and not any genes, but genes that will help a species thrive in particular environments. If you look at the statistics required for that type of mutation and the fact that even the slightest variation of the mutation would instead result in the death of the animal, it becomes abundantly clear that these mutations occur by design, not simply random chance. The statistical evidence is staggering. You can contend that overall, evolution is not random, but if you remove the presence of design, then you are actually still relying quite heavily on random chance. Furthermore, I realize that genes in general are not useless in single celled organisms, but the theory of the latent library suggests that there are certain genes that are not used in any way whatsoever. The later realization (and consequent use) of these genes in multi celled organisms suggests that the genes were always there with evolution in mind.

Regarding God's timing, the fact that life had to "wait around" is not indicative of any fault in the timing of events. Who says that life had to start rapidly? What if earth was preparing during that time to sustain more complex life. The connections between the two concepts are not exclusive. Perfect timing can still take a long time. For example, if you were to meet the girl that you are supposed to marry when you are in middle school, you would have to fight through a lot to eventually tie the knot. However, if you met her when you were 25, you might be ready, and face far fewer obstacles in the process. In that respect, the amount of time it took to meet her (in the latter scenario) would have been longer, but perfectly longer and perfectly timed nonetheless.

Lastly, your suggestions regarding the statistical probability of life are interesting ones, especially in regard to the immense amount of matter. However, I feel the need to remind you that we are talking specifically about human life. And maybe they will find more of that somewhere in the universe, but from what we know now, the amount of factors that needed to come together in order to  sustain human life leave us with a massive statistical improbability. Additionally, the research does not show us the relative ease with which life can be created. There are components that suggest that life could have spawned randomly, but even this research is incomplete. We have yet to prove anything of the sort. And we certainly have no way of showing how we have gotten to the point at which we've arrived. Again, random chance is not a good enough defense.

As always, your thoughts are so fascinating. Keep them coming. 

Theological Dialogue 8: The "A"morality of nature

This response has been a long time coming, so I apologize for that. Hopefully I can provide you with some interesting insight that will make the wait worthwhile though. We'll see.

(Question)

A follow up question to my follow up question. You said "Most likely, it [Morality] was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man." In reference to the origin of morality.

When you say this are you also consequently also saying that humans i.e homosapiens are the only animals with souls and morality? If so how can you explain animals taking care of young that is not their own? These appear to be moral actions. 

(Response)

Your questions, as always, are interesting ones. I'll try to take them on one by one and see if I can do them any justice. For starters, yes, ultimately I do think that humans (homosapiens) are the only animals with souls and a sense of morality. From a biblical perspective at least, humans are the only animals into which God breaths life, or the nashema (soul), which we've talked about in class. The other animals that inhabit the earth are not created in the same fashion, at least not according to Genesis. Furthermore, humans are the only animals to have developed to the extent that we have. Part of this is obviously due to our capabilities, but part of it is also due to our innate sense of morality, or at least that is my belief. 

But you present a good point when you talk about the seemingly moral actions conducted by animals other than humans. And your example is a good one. However, I think that we are mistaking instinctual actions for moral ones and that is what makes the difference. Using the example that you provided, when we look at a mother taking care of "babies" that are not her own, we are not so much witnessing a moral act, but the execution of both a survival tactic and the animals instinctual tendency to nurture. In other words, the animal isn't doing it because it is the right thing to do, rather they are doing it because innately they know that it will contribute to the survival of the species, but also because they, at least in some circumstances, can not help it. They are designed to nurture, so that is what they will do. I offer a counter example to further my point. When it comes to giant pandas (an animal you know that I love) in the wild, when a mother gives birth to twins, she will abandon the weaker one for the stronger one, nurturing it and allowing the other to die. I bring this up in order to show that if we are going to claim that the mother who takes in young that are not her own is performing a "moral action" then we must also claim that the giant panda is performing a terribly wicked one. But in reality, she is not. She is simply acting in accordance with her survival instincts.

There is an essay called "Amoral Nature" that is quite dense, but it deals with this topic specifically. To save you the time, essentially the drive of the essay is to show that nature (and the animals within it) is/are without morality. Its primary evidence revolves around a particular wasp that has a stinger fashioned like a large syringe. When the female is ready to lay her eggs, she finds a nice, plump, caterpillar, and paralyzes it with her stinger while simultaneously depositing her eggs, which will soon turn into hungry larvae. The caterpillar remains paralyzed by the poison administered in the initial injection while the larvae proceed to feast on the caterpillar's insides, all the while growing stronger. What is particularly horrific/fascinating/phenomenal depending on how you view this event, is that the larvae begin with the non-vital elements of the interior, not moving on to the vital organs until they are ready to burst forth from their pseudo womb. The consequence of this extremely strategic growth pattern is that the caterpillar remains alive until the very end, providing its very self as the perfect host for the larvae. In other words, it is eaten from the inside out until it finally experiences what I would imagine is a long awaited death. All of this is simply to show that if nature in fact does have some sense of morality, it is without question the most wicked and terrible place imaginable. Did you know that there is a fungus that grows inside ants that actually tricks them into returning to their colony so that it can spread? Entire civilizations (???) are decimated by this fungus, and it uses the very species that hosts it in order to accomplish these ends. And these are simply a couple examples! Nature is a horrifying place. But not intentionally so. In each one of these cases, these species are simply doing what they have always done, fighting for survival. We can not pick and choose events and say that some a moral and others are not. Either nature is a moral place, far more wicked than humanity could ever be, or it is without morality. Most likely it is the latter. Action in nature is driven by instinct and surveil, that is all. 

(Question)

If evolution is in fact true as many people believe and that it was kickstarted by something. Why would God let nature run its course entirely until humans. Why even have evolution if he could've simply made humans from the "get go".

Stemming from my previous question and discussions in class. What makes us both in the human sense and us as individuals the desired outcome? You say we are walking arguments for the existence of God but aren't we just random biological chance? Any one person has an extremely low chance of existing but if all the same events were to happen in our ancestors time line with exceptions in the sperm and egg of an individual's parents. Someone else would exist. Not nobody. 

(Response)

To address this initial question, I think that we first need to discuss this notion of allowing nature to "run its course". In a way, your phrasing suggests that God simply let things run randomly until He decided to get involved and breath some life (and probably a soul) into what we now know as human beings. I think that this notion is somewhat inaccurate though. While I do not contest that the species that occupy our planet evolved over time, I would content that their evolution was not in fact totally random. I think you got my last email, but in it, I briefly discussed the notion of the latent library. Essentially, the existence of a latent library (the presence of genes that are entirely useless to single celled organism that nonetheless appear in their genomes and then are later activated in more complex species) proves, in a lot of ways, that evolution was not running a random course, but rather a designed one. Like Aquinas suggests in his fifth way, the arrow was always headed toward the target. It did not end up there on accident. And furthermore, God did not simply correct it's course at the last minute.

As for why God would not just create humans immediately, I do not entirely know. But what I do know is that the Earth underwent a series changes, it too evolved and prepared itself to sustain life. Could God have simply set it up from the get go? Of course. But that isn't how He chose to do things. He created in the fashion that He did because it was best (for reasons beyond our understanding) and thus His timing was undoubtedly perfect when it came to the creation of humanity as well. He did not create us before we were ready. When it comes to God, His timing is impeccable. 

Regarding our status as the desired outcome, the only viable explanation is simply that God designed it that way. The notion is objective in nature. There isn't a "because" followed by a long list of qualities and traits that make us worthy or deserving of this status, we are simply the desired outcome because God chose us to be. He wanted to be in relationship with us, and created us for that purpose. 

Lastly, your assertion that the existence of someone consequently increases the statistical likelihood of someone else (not necessarily you) is somewhat accurate, but not entirely. When I said that you are a walking proof of the existence of God, I was asserting the fact that you, specifically, are a miracle. The statistical likelihood of your existence is outrageously low. Furthermore, the statistical likelihood of humanity in general, and the fact that there are so many of us, is even lower. You see, the chances of a random generating of life are nearly impossible and for that random spark of life to have led to us is a claim that is simply outlandish, to put things lightly. Maybe you could assert that you specifically are biologically random (and even if that is the case, your existence in my opinion still proves the existence of God, whether you are supposed to be you, or not), so all that would then suggest is that there is no purpose for you, specifically. And that is a claim you are entitled to, but it is a bleak one. There is no question that humanity did not end up here by random chance. You won't find any viable argument for that. However, whether humanity has a purpose, now that is a question that is slightly more difficult to answer. We most likely do, but that is more a question of faith than statistics. All I can say is that the design seems to point toward us, which would suggest that there is a reason everything moved in this direction, and if there is reason, there is purpose. 

I promise to get to your last question soon. I miss having you in class!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 7: Prayer and The Plan

(Questions)

How are we supposed to pray? If God is truly all-powerful, and He has a plan for us, doesn’t that make our prayers kind of pointless? Or even a distraction from the goal at hand? Should we just let life unfold in the way it is supposed to and stay out of the way?

(Response)

These are questions that I have actually wrestled with for a long time. It isn’t easy to figure out how to pray, and considering that most of the time we only do it when we are in need, it makes things increasingly more difficult, consequently making these questions all the more prevalent.

First and foremost though, I think that it is important to remember that prayer is not designed solely as a petitioning of the Lord. If we only look at it that way, we truly might be asking for the wrong things, and worse yet, we might be fighting, although probably in vain, the Lord’s plan for us.

When it comes to prayer, the best basis we have, by far, is the Lord’s Prayer given to us by Christ. However, I think that Jesus’ words in these moments are often times misunderstood. He tells us what we shouldn’t do, and then goes on to tell us that if we pray, we should pray like this:

 Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come,

your will be done,

on earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

What is often missed is that Jesus is not simply implying that when we pray, this is the only prayer we should make. Instead, he is actually providing us with a “template” of sorts as we pray. When we look at the first couple of lines, it becomes readily apparent that all prayer should begin by worshipping the Lord. This is vitally important because before all else, we need to acknowledge that God is the great “I am” and we owe all things to Him. Then you’ll notice that the next component of the prayer enlightens us to the fact that we should be praying for God’s will to come to fruition. Both the nature and the placement of this are important. Next, we will petition to the Lord, but before that ever happens, it is essential to put His will above our own. In this way, if they align, fantastic, but if they do not, we are placing priority on the will of the Lord. As noted above, we are then given the opportunity to ask the Lord for our “daily bread” and probably the “daily bread” of others ;) But it is important to remember that Jesus does not, in the famous words of my old priest, tell us that we should be asking for cake. I believe that “daily bread” is meant to imply the things we need, not simply the things we want, which are not always easy to separate. After that, the end is pretty straightforward. We ask for forgiveness, we ask for the strength to forgive, we ask that He keep us from temptation, and we ask that He keep us within His protection. All of these things are things that we should ask for on a daily basis if not multiple times per day.

So what does this all mean regarding the sovereignty of God and whether or not we will interfere with “the plan” with our numerous petitions? To this I would say that ultimately our prayers do not have the potential to alter the course of God’s plan, but they do have the capability of allowing us to play an active role in that plan. You see, when we pray, we are establishing a bond with the Lord. We are actively pursuing a relationship with Him. And our involvement in this relationship will inevitably involve us in God’s plan. Prayer allows us to be both privy to God’s work in our lives, but it also helps us to be okay with it.

At the end of the day, God’s Kingdom will be established here on earth. We cannot stand in the way of that, but we can certainly play a role in making it a reality. Our prayer is an essential component of that. The more you seek to align your will with God’s, the more active He will be in your life. Sure, you can sit idly by and let things unfold around you, and they most certainly will, but you can also take an active roll. Either way every piece of the plan will fall together perfectly, the only question then becomes whether you did anything to help it along. You do have that power.

In closing, I want to share with you something that I heard at retreat this week that I think sheds some interesting light on these questions. It is a simple prayer, and it goes like this: “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you. For everything to come, yes.”

Now I understand that this can seem a little dreadfully all-encompassing. I actually think that our first inclination is to fight this, how can we offer our gratitude for everything that has happened in our lives? I could give you all the theological arguments surrounding this question, but that isn’t what I want. All I will say is this: This week I met young men who have been through the darkest of storms and still manage to offer overwhelmingly powerful gratitude for the lives they have been given. If they can find this gratefulness in their hearts, then I too can say, “Lord, for everything that has happened, thank you.”

Theological Dialogue 6: Destruction, Desolation and again... The Soul

I apologize for the delay in response, but rest assured, your questions are always fascinating, so keep them coming. I promise  to answer them to the best of my ability, eventually ;)

As for this round, I'm going to try to knock all of them out (including a couple from the previous email) so I apologize for the lengthy replay. If you have to read it in a couple parts, I totally understand.

1.If some catastrophic event were to take place which brought the human population to a drastically small number, wiping out society as we know it and wiping out science and religion, science would inevitably be repeatable and thus the knowledge amassed today would eventually return. However, religion and specifically Catholicism would likely be rebuilt with a much different image and could quite likely turn out polytheistic. How would God be able to keep people on the path of Catholicism without revealing Himself? If revealing himself is an exception God would make in order maintain faith in this circumstance, why would God not show himself to those who have no interaction with Christianity today in order to guide them to faith?

This is quite an interesting scenario, and to some extent, I think you are correct about the possible conclusions of this population decimating catastrophe. We have every reason to believe, that given enough time, and enough resources, humanity would probably have a relatively similar view of science as it had pre-disaster. Or at least science would reveal itself in the same ways (assuming the disaster did not radically alter certain dynamics of our planet) and so the thought would be that we, after numerous mistakes and misguided hypotheses, would end but with a similar outlook or understanding of scientific principles.

Regarding religion though, I think you are right in that the traditions of Catholicism might end up looking very different, assuming that there was no one left who had previously been a member of the faith in addition to the Catholic church losing all of its guiding resources (the Roman Missal, etc.) In fact, if that was the case, there might be no religion at all, and certainly no Christianity, at least to start. You do know my thesis about humanity and our desire though, so I would contend that once again, we would seek a relationship with God. However, we would most likely make many of the same mistakes we made the first time around. 

For this reason, and the scenario at hand, although at this point things would be getting a little redundant, I do believe that God would once again reveal Himself to humanity. Maybe in the same fashion as His revelation to Abraham, Moses and the patriarchs, or maybe this time He would simply come down in the form of Christ. Either way, I think that He would provide guidance and inevitably, I think that we would make a number of mistakes in our efforts to follow that guidance. 

But that is not really your question. It appears that you are more concerned why God fails to reveal Himself now. Ultimately, I think the answer to this is somewhat straightforward: Because He already has. We've talked about the impact on free-will and revelation (especially if it were to occur in our day in age) but what we rarely talk about is the fact that God is constantly revealing Himself on a daily basis, we are simply too blind to see it. Furthermore, when it comes to revelation regarding those who do not have access to Christianity, we have to remember that it is our responsibility to share the good news with those who have yet to hear it. Remember in class when we talked about the fact that humanity is walking proof of the existence of God? Well, if you combine this thought with the fact that we were truly made in God's image, then every time we reach out to someone that does not know God, He is revealing Himself to that individual, through us. God has billions of tools on this planet, perfectly designed to guide one another to the faith, and we still sit around asking where He is... He is in every one of us. Revelation today is ridiculously prolific, our skepticism and pride just stand in our way of noticing it. 

2. Finally, you have stated several beliefs you have about the theory of evolution, such as the idea that evolution happened in large jumps, and that the species of humans differed from earlier species due to God breathing the soul into us. I am curious to know your beliefs on the idea that, without respect to the soul, humans evolved from single-cell organisms. Additionally, if the idea of giant leaps taking place to facilitate evolution holds true, why is there evidence of evolution for the current species of human such as previous civilizations having shorter people, or why is there the evidence of Darwin's finches having different beaks?

First and foremost, I do think that species can adapt and evolve in micro fashions. You see it in some animals and even some humans, particularly civilizations or cultures that have been subject to devastation or tragedy. But I also think there are a number of factors at play here. When we talk about human begins being taller, stronger, faster, and healthier, we are, in some ways, dealing with an evolution of sorts, but we are also dealing with a change in environment that has provided us with more resources, nutrients, etc. I say that only to point out that human beings may have always had the capacity to be what they are now, they simply lacked the resources. If this is the case, then it really isn't an evolution, it is more a realization of potential. What we mistake for evolution might be the product of other environmental changes.

With all of that said, my theories surrounding the nature of "big jumps" correspond more with the explosion of various species. About 530 million years ago, the Cambrian explosion gave way to the 34 phylum that we have today. Previous to that point, as far as I understand, we have no evidence of a slow evolution of these species, and since that time, we have not found any new phylum. I am of the belief that this explosion was a directed result of the latent library theory. This is a theory that states that all the genetic material necessary for species today actually existed in the small organisms that preceded them, even though that material was utterly useless for those particular organisms. In other words, the building blocks for each species has always been around since the very beginning. This would suggest some element of design. 

As always, I do not wish to contend with evolution, I simply want to show how it is not in conflict with the existence of God, and if anything, it actually, in my opinion, supports the likelihood of a creator. One who is creative, and omniscient in the unfolding of His plan. 

Furthermore, and kind of as an aside, but interesting nonetheless, the Rosetta Stone of evolution has always been fossil evidence of a cross species organism, something that shows the existence of a species in translation, if you will. To my knowledge, there is one type of fossil that fits this description. It is part reptile and part bird, I believe. Interestingly enough, when God is revealing the Torah to Moses, He spends a little bit of time talking about the various animals and what categories they fit into (you know, so the Israelites know what they can eat and sacrifice) and there is one animal, mentioned twice, that fall into both categories. So what does this mean? Only that this species in translation was accounted for long long long long long before science found their "holy grail". Again, I do not wish to content with evolution. We are evolving as humans every day. It is a product of knowledge and education. However, I do want to show that evolution does not replace God, or prove that He does not exist or even that we do not need Him. If anything, it does more to support His involvement in the miraculous history of life. 

3. There is evidence that the world can and with almost absolute certainty, will end. This could happen from our sun becoming a red giant near the end of its life and scorching the earth, the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with our own which would very likely destroy earth, and if these don't destroy Earth the expansion of the universe will inevitably leave our would cold and alone in space without the ability to sustain life. Why would God create a world which will eventually not be suitable for life?

Well, this is a rather bleak question. ;) The inevitable destruction of our planet seems to be a recurring theme here, and one that certainly suggests that we should make the most of the time we are given, even though none of these scenarios will likely occur in our lifetime. The philosophy is a good one nonetheless. 

As for the creation of a planet that will, at some point in time, no longer be able to sustain life, my thoughts are essentially twofold. My first and immediate assumption would be that the terminal nature of our planet is not really something to be dwelt upon because God's sovereign plan will come to fruition long before our planet's demise. Ultimately, we are working with two different time lines: one that represents God's plan, and one that represents the lifespan of planet earth. In theory, if the first timeline is complete prior to the end of the second, then the latter timeline is actually rendered irrelevant. For example, if you pull someone out of the way of a moving vehicle, the vehicle remains on course, and the person remains safe. 

My second thought regarding this matter is similar to that concerning the notion of natural disasters. In our universe, we've seen evidence that stars (and the "planets" that surround them) have some sort of natural course from "birth" to "death". Could God have created a solar system that was not subject to this natural flow? Certainly. Did He? It would appear, from our predictions, that He did not. I can't necessarily explain the reasoning here, other than simply surmising that when God made the universe, He did so in-line with the natural laws and thus Earth is just as subject to those laws as everything else. 

When we put these two premises together, all I can suggest is that what needs to get done, will get done, prior to the time that our planet runs its natural course. Ultimately, the finite nature of our planet is not an issue for an infinite God.

4.I was wondering if Animals had free will.
If not then species pre homosapien could not have had free will. During this time God would have just been a puppet master. Why would He decide to so drastically change his plan for the world. This would indicate that He didn't really love his early children, our ancestors, and so would not be wholly benevolent.
On the other side of the spectrum, if animals have free will, God very nearly risked the entire human race which, as far as I understand, He loves above all His other creations. In history, our ancestors in Africa, far from the top of the food chain, quite nearly reached extinction due to predation and other factors. Why would God leave the fate of the human race to chance and allow them to nearly die out if He loves us? If it was divine intervention that saved us from extinction didn't that inhibit free will?

Now this is a really interesting question! I think that animals have limited free-will. Not necessarily because it has been hindered by God, but rather because they are only capable of so much. It is similar to the notion that your free-will is limited by your capabilities. You couldn't go and fly a 777 to Hawaii, but only because you don't know how. You of course have the free-will to try, but your ability will inevitably limit you. Ultimately, if free-will is the ability to do whatever you what, whenever you want, then it can be limited by a number of different elements. 

Regarding pre homosapien humanoid creatures, the same ideas would apply. They had free-will to some extent, but they were also limited by their ability to execute that free-will. The introduction of the soul, in a lot of ways, widened the scope of capability. Whether is was a catalyst for in-depth reasoning, critical thought, or something else entirely, the soul changed humanity. It did not give them free-will, that was already in place, but it gave them a wider range with which to utilize it. 

On the other side of the spectrum, as you appropriately pointed out, there would appear to be some things left to random chance if animals and early humans were all operating with some limited degree of free-will. However, we can not, from a theological perspective, really suggest that God was taking a risk. The very nature of risk implies a lack of knowledge concerning the outcome of events and we have to believe that God always knew how things were going to work out. Sure, to us, it may have seemed as if "humanity" was under threat of extinction, but in reality, that was probably never the case. 

As for why God would subject pre-humanity to the challenges and adversity of life in early Africa, the answer is simple. At that point in time, prior to the bequeathing of the soul, humanoid creatures were animals like anything else. Furthermore, God's "intervention", and ultimately the gift of the soul, was not an inhibiting of free-will, but an extending of it. Humanity actually gained more free-will with the soul than they had ever had. So much so, it even led to the fall. In a kind of weird twist of events, it may have been the very giving of the soul that resulted in humanity's misguided attempt to be closer to God and eventually the severing of that relationship.

Anyway, hope this sheds some insight. 

MRD