<<I think this is a good point, that Glenn (and Hugh Ross) could well
heed. Trying to show that man is different from the animals, can play
into the naturalists' hands. They can always show that animals can use
tools and that hominids may have had some abilities in common with
Homo sapiens. But the Biblical teaching is that only man (ie. Homo
sapiens) is in the image of God, a category revealed to man by God
(Gn 1:26-27; 9:6), not derived from nature by comparing man with
his fellow creatures.>>
Great point! In all of the debate raging about the humanity (or not) of
Neanderthal, the issue clearly is the definition of humanity. Glenn and
others point to evidence of Neanderthal's reflective consciousness (e.g.,
burial sites) or "art" (such as it is) as, perforce, evidence of humanity.
This, however, may be based on an erroneous definition of "humanity." If
so, the house of cards crumbles.
We must look to see what the Bible's definition of humanity is. And it is,
of course, abundantly clear that biblical man's mark is the image of God
(imago Dei).
As Carl Henry puts it, "The Bible does not discriminate man from the
animals in terms of morphological considerations, but in terms of the imago
Dei. Man is made for personal and endless fellowship with God, involving
rational understanding (Gen. 1:28ff.), moral obedience (2:16-17), and
religious communion (3:3)." ["Image of God" in Dictonary of Evangelical
Theology, p. 548].
Jim Bell