<<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.).>>
Good insight, as always. I think you're right. But as Steve's clips from
Ramm and Barth show, and from a recent look at this whole definition of
humanity (see the Henry squib), it looks as if the evidence may not be so
easily ascertained.
<<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.>>
It may only be accessible to historians and the history of written codes.
<<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 ...)?>>
Interesting query. I think the evidence is only inferential, but strongly
so. It is the theological import of Gen. 1 and 2.
<<(And BTW, houses of cards -collapse-, not -crumble-.>>
Well, I wrote what I wrote. And that's just the way the cookie collapses.
Jim