That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution – and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of “revolution,” which means sudden change – requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.
But perhaps even more importantly, the only reason anyone would want to say that humans evolved from monkeys is the lack of any better way to explain the existence of humans, as well as monkeys and other species of life. There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from monkeys – there is not even any evidence that things evolve altogether. No evolutionist has ever seen or brought any evidence that even a single new organ has ever appeared through evolution, never mind a new species.
And the evidence against evolution is so obivously compelling – the dependence on the completeness of biologial systems for the survival of the organism has evolutionists nailed to the wall. The first male member of the species had to already have available counterpart with a fully functional female reproductive system, and vice versa, else the species would not have had a chance to survive long enough to develop into anything; the first chicken egg had to be just thick enough to contain the newborn during the incubation period, but thin enough to allow it to break free.
The reason the evolutionists created and still cling to that theory is because they have no better way to explain how we got here. If the world is accident, then evolution is the best they can come up with, even though it is unreasonable; if the world was created, then it is simply unreasonable.
So for example, “evidence” such as “vestigial” organs is only evidence if you assume that the world is an accident. But if Hashem created the world and (c”v) “guided” evolution, it would mean that He sloppily provided humans with useless organs that He neglected to “guide” through the evolutionary process. And if you will give G-d enough credit that these organs actually do have a purpose that we do not know of, then the vestigial-organ evidence is down the tubes to begin with.
The whole idea makes no sense.
There are those who like to talk this way in a Kiruv situaiton when encountering the naive or unsophisticated who will not think outside the box they were placed in by trendy pseudo-science and will not open their minds to more logical, yet unfashionable thinking. People say such things in order to save the souls of the closed minded. But as an actual possibility, this idea does not qualify.
The requirement to believe Torah MiSinai includes of course, not only Torah shebiksav but Torah shebaal peh. That includes Midrashim. However, Agados can be interpreted not literally. Rav Saadia Gaon writes that an Agada can be interpreted as Mesholim in 4 instances: If it contradicts reality, reason, Gemara or Rabbinic tradition. The Ramchal, in Maamar HaAgadta also writes that some Agados are mesholim. (See also Radak Shmuel I end of ch. 28)
Not accpeting a Maamr Chazal is not accpetable – but to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more palatable is OK. Theoretically, that is. In order to interpret any Chazal – Halachah or Agada – you need to benefit of Rabbinic tradition throughout the ages. If the Rishonim considered an Agada literal, you would be fooling yourself by saying that it is not. They surely had the same measure of common sense as we do, and so if they were not bothered by the credulity of a specific statement of Chazal, we should not be, either.
Another thing: There are people who refuse to accept what seems to them incredulity even in Pesukim of the torah and they therefore interpret them allegorically. That is Apikorsus for sure. And to say that well, I will trust the Torah and the prophets but not Chazal makes no sense. Chazal didnt make up stories. But rather the Agada was said, sometimes, as a Moshol. But to know when it is a Moshol and when it is literal is as difficult as properly interpreting any Torah passage. And here, too, the same logic that tells you the literal meaning of the CHazal is hard ot accept also tells you in even stronger tones, that we are nothing but foolish to reject the opinions of our Rishonim, who understood both reality and Chazal much better than we do.
I have a better idea, then, for such cases, when you come across such a Chazal. Invoke Rav Chaim Brisker’s dictums: “Fun a kasha shtarbt mir nisht”. You wont die from a [an unanswered] question. And “S’iz besser to beiben by a kasha vi tzu zogen a krumer teretz” – “Its better to remain with a quesiton than to have the wrong answer.”
So say simply, “I don’t understand this Chazal.” You dont have to interpret it any way at all. Maybe one day you’ll see something in a sefer or someone will explain it. In the meantime, there is no need to jump to conclusions that our predecesors did not reach.