Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
The creation story in Genesis 1 isn't science and doesn't provide any kind of scientific description for man. So that is a moot point.
There is a very clear fossil record (in addition to genetic studies) that very clearly show human beings are part of a larger lineage of great apes--the hominids, whose closest relatives are the chimps.
So, yes, human beings are animals. Phylogenetically this is easily demonstrated by our clear and demonstrable relation with the other great apes and in bounty of hominid fossils; we aren't plants or fungi, we're animals.
Using Genesis 1 to argue against science is like trying to use Jesus' parable of the shrewd manager to advocate dishonest business practices. That's simply not the point of the story. The point of Genesis 1 isn't to give us a scientific analysis of the created world or to describe the material how of God's creative act but to put forward a theology of creation. Because if you try to take Genesis 1 literally you will immediately come to a major stumbling block when you try reading the creation story in Genesis 2, these are two entirely different stories of creation that, if taken literally, are objectively contradictory. In Genesis 1 God creates vegetation before the beasts and the beasts before man; in Genesis 2 God creates man, then He creates vegetation, and puts man in a garden, and then creates the beasts. In Genesis 1 God creates male and female simultaneously, in Genesis 2 God creates Adam before He creates Eve.
So attempting to use Genesis to reject science simply isn't going to be a useful argument. I don't subscribe to a modern fundamentalist reading of Genesis. Neither, mind you, have many Christians right from the early years of the Christian Church (e.g. Origen, Augustine, and right up through Thomas Aquinas in the high middle ages).
-CryptoLutheran
Do I understand by what you are saying, you do not believe that man is created in God's image?
Upvote
0