Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

I don't think anyone was equating the imago dei with intelligence alone.
IMHO, it involves a bunch of things, including moral cognition,
dominion/stewardship, creativity, capacity to love (in a 1 Cor. 13 sense),
and language. Some of these characteristics other animals clearly possess,
but IMHO not in the same capacity as humans.

Re: technology -- the point here isn't that technology is always good or
used for the good. The point is that humans alone of all creatures seem
capable of using technology in such an extensive fashion. I believe this
reflects aspects of the imago dei (e.g., dominion and creativity), as well
as part of the creation mandate given to humanity alone.

IMHO this is one of those subtle problems in reconciling evolution and
theology. It's very easy to slip from "all life is biologically related" to
"the continuum of life suggests no real differnces in kind between humans
and other creatures."

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> David Opderbeck wrote:
> > What scripture? Where does scripture suggest that the imago dei has
> > anything to do with eternal souls? Where in Psalm 8, for example,
> > does the eternal soul fit into the uniqueness of humanity?
> I'm not sure it does --or as you suggest, I'm willing to accept that
> Scripture never equates those two explicitly, although, now that you
> mention it that is yet another thing traditionally trotted out as a
> possible meaning for "image of God". I think Scriptures do support that
> we are, of all the creatures of earth, uniquely created in the image of
> God. (We all agree on that, right?) And separately, the case can also
> be made that we do have souls (whether immortal or not may be debatable)
> that do / can live on after the body dies. While I accept these
> propositions separately, I don't think I've ever defended that they are
> tied together accept through our speculation. But our quibbling
> (which I continue below) seems more centered on "intelligence". Was
> anybody suggesting that this is what "image of God" means? If so I
> should like to know which Scriptures support that.
> > Re: the echolocation test: fine, throw me in the water. Just do it
> > near a nuclear submarine with a sonar operator on board. And while
> > we're at it, let's make the test involve targeting a small projectile
> > moving at least twenty miles an hour faster than any dolphin can swim.
> >
> > Then, after that, let's add using our echolocation / sonar equipment
> > to see through flesh in order to observe the heartbeat of a growing
> > infant in the womb.
> >
> > Waiting. Still waiting......
> >
> > This is another difference in kind between humans and animals -- we
> > can extend our abilities and senses using technology in ways that
> > animals cannot. (Yes, I know many animals use tools, but please --
> > using a rock and a twig to open termite mounds differs in kind from a
> > nuclear submarine. And if that's only a matter of "degree," then the
> > degree / kind distinction is so broad as to be meaningless).
> >
> > As to John's "ecocentrism" -- oh, brother. Let's do a Maypole
> > dance with Gaia while we're at it. Human beings are unique. We alone
> > among the creatures of the earth have the image of God. That's not
> > "ecocentrism," it's Christian theology. Equating humans with animals
> > except in degree is "scientism," which we're all supposed to be against.
> And we are. Or at least I am. I just don't think the case is as
> obvious to make apart from Scripture. But regarding our relative
> intelligence, we can't even devise intelligence tests that everybody
> deems fair within our own species let alone beyond. Does Scripture
> speak to this? And apart from Scripture, to pit our obviously greater
> possession of toys & tech. against the dearth of the same in the hands
> of other species is to beg the question of whether tools represent
> intelligence in the first place. Some other "universal standard" might
> just easily have an intelligence scale that says the more tools a
> species is forced to use, the less intelligent they must be. Maybe
> nuclear submarines & such is just us brandishing our "flash in the pan"
> idiocy before the patient cosmos. Please don't take this too
> seriously (just in case you are.) I don't really think humans are
> un-intelligent. But I wouldn't make the case for our intelligence on
> anything but Scripture --and anyway I'm not so sure it has anything to
> do with "image of God" either. I do like Job 28, (a real tribute to
> science). And then the closing chapters of Job restore us to a sober
> perspective again --and a counterbalance to the sentiments of the later
> verses of Psalm 8; and we are reminded that we really aren't in charge
> as much as we like to think; even here on earth.
>
> --Merv
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 24 18:58:58 2008