At the same time, I think the reason Glenn has brought up the issues he's
raised is that many Christians (indeed, many people generally) have used
these evidences (tools, reflection on death, art, music, etc.) as
paradigmatic indicators of humanity.
For Christians, these evidences were not typically meant to displace or
replace the imago Dei, but to exemplify it (rationality, spiritual
consciousness, creativity, etc.).
Given that the imago Dei is not a self-evident theological concept (and is
one whose content has varied significantly over time as a result), Christian
theologians need to spell it out, and then see if it has empirical
implications which are accessible to the sciences. Many, perhaps most, have
thought the aforementioned evidences and mental analogs were such.
If you don't think so, that's fine, but I hope you're not suggesting Glenn
is being way off base or naive in thinking this. (And BTW, houses of
cards -collapse-, not -crumble-. ;^> )
One question: while the imago Dei is clearly in Christian theology a
hallmark of humanity, do you know of any Biblical evidence to -require- that
it's -unique- to humans (v. angels, say, or extraterrestrials, or
proto-humans, or ...)? I'm genuinely curious -- offhand, I can't think of
any, aside from its not being mentioned in reference to other beings (which
may be significant, but signifying what, exactly, since there are only a few
[4 or 5?] references to it wrt humanity?).
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Jim Bell
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 11:35 AM
To: evolution@calvin.edu; Stephen Jones
Subject: Re: After Fundamentalism (was Destructive criticism of
Christian apologists (was Denigrating...
Steve Jones posted a nice summary with excerpts from Ramm's After
Fundamentalism. Thanks, Steve.
<<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