This is one of those points where believers in theistic evolution like Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and Simon Conway Morris ask religious believers to pare back key theological beliefs to suit Darwinian doctrine. As I've tried to tell you before, the evolution debate should be of urgent interest to the faith community. Even the most religion-friendly Darwinists leave us with a faith severely foreshortened, compared to what most of us think we have learned from the Bible and other religious texts. This is not about science alone. It's about what a particular interpretation of scientific data seeks to tell us about ourselves as spiritual beings.
You know the key verses from Genesis (1:26-27, emphasis added):
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
On his BioLogos website, genome scientist Dr. Collins cites Cambridge University's Simon Conway Morris on "convergence." That's the idea, very far from being universally accepted by Darwinian biologists, that even unguided evolution would eventually "converge" on a creature somewhat like us. Without God's involvement as life's designer, we could expect (emphasis added):
many of the traits that are particularly relevant for human-like beings. These examples include basic senses like balance, hearing and vision, as well as highly advanced features like the human brain....Characteristics such as a large brain capable of consciousness, language and complex thought would inevitably have to emerge from the evolutionary process....
The exact anatomical features of this ultimate sentient being might not be precisely specified by the evolutionary process, however. This thought can be unsettling to anyone who imagines our particular body plan is part of the imago Dei, or image of God.
[E]ventually I think you would also get a large, intelligent, reflective, self-aware organism with a highly developed nervous system. Now it might be a big-brained dinosaur, or it might be a mollusk with exceptional mental capabilities....[M]y point is that I think eventually under the conditions that we have in this universe you would get an intelligent, self-aware and reflective organism, which is to say you'd get something like us. It might not come out of the primates, it might come from somewhere else.
The brainiest of mollusks are squid, octopus and cuttlefish. So if you're willing to believe the face or body of one of those (see above) can reflects God's image as well as ours, then you will be comfortable with theistic evolution.
But in that case, you'd better also be comfortable with abandoning the clear meaning of the verses from Genesis. The relevant Hebrew words, tzelem (image) and demut (likeness), mean respectively "appearance" and "similarity in form or deed." These are the definitions given by the classical Spanish medieval commentator Nachmanides, based on an analysis of how the words are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.
Our being created in God's image, he writes, is meant to "stress the remarkable phenomenon that distinguished [man] from [all] the rest of the creations." This includes "[man's] facial expression, [which is an expression of] wisdom and knowledge and perfection of deed." This is God's image sealed in our own faces.
The Zohar (1:191a), relating the most mystical interpretation of the Torah, says this:
[W]hen the blessed Holy One created the world, He fashioned every single creature of the world in its own fitting image, and afterward He created the human being in a supernal image [i.e., God's image corresponding to the divine emanations, or sefirot, depicted in a configuration of ten reflecting the shape of a man], granting him dominion over them all through this image. For as long as a human exists in the world, all those creatures of the world raise their heads and gaze upon the supernal image of the human being; then they all fear and tremble before him, as is said: "Fear and dread of you shall be upon every living thing of the earth" [Genesis 9:2].
Don't worry if you do not understand exactly what that means. The key point to take away is that even animals somehow perceive the Godly image in man. They would not perceive it an octopus, however intelligent.
Nor is this some kind of exclusively mystical insight. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Darwin's contemporary, emphasizes the same point in his own classic Torah commentary, and he disclaimed any kabbalistic influence. Instead, he emphasized the practical worldview emanating from the text -- conveyed, most characteristically, by an exquisitely careful examination of the Hebrew language in which the Biblical tradition is transmitted.
His approach to Torah was scientific, in the sense that he lets the words, the data, say what they do rather than fitting them to an a priori idea. Based on an etymological analysis, he too concludes (on Genesis 1:26) that "image" (tzelem) "only means the outer covering, the bodily form." So: "The bodily form of man proclaims him as the representative of God, as the divine on earth,...such as complies with, is adequate to, a being having the calling of being 'godlike.'" Clearly, not just any bodily form would serve the purpose.
Finally, you can't get any more basic, fundamental understanding of what the Torah means than from the supreme classical commentator, Rashi. He cites a parable from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 46b) in explanation of a verse in Deuteronomy (21:23). If a man is convicted of a capital crime and then executed and hung, care must be taken that his body not be displayed overnight: "for a hanging person is an insult to God."
Why so?
It is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the likeness of His image, and Israel are His sons. This can be compared to two twin brothers who resembled each other. One became a king, while one became ensnared in banditry, and was hung. Whoever would see him [hanging] would say, "The King is hanging!" Any instance of k'lalah (insult) in Scripture means treating lightly and in a demeaning fashion.
God is demeaned by the person in His image being hung overnight. There are other ways to understand this remarkable parable, but the obvious one, given what we've said so far, is that seeing a degraded human body also degrades God, since "man is made in the likeness of His image."
If you were Francis Collins you might ask what all this matters. Are we insisting on a literal reading of Scripture? Is this all about the dreaded phantom menace of literalist creationism?
Maimonides (who incidentally takes a different, more intellectualizing view on the meaning of tzelem) writes in the Guide of the Perplexed (2:25) that where no larger philosophical or moral issue is at stake, and where science goes against the literal meaning, figurative interpretations of the Scriptural text can be an option. But where such an interpretation would throw an authentic religious worldview into chaos, and where in any event the scientific evidence doesn't compel it, then certainly we should resist abandoning the plain meaning.
Hirsch, as always, clarifies the relevant worldview implications. It matters urgently that we not entirely spiritualize the meaning of our being imprinted with God's image. That way lies moral catastrophe, with our bodily acts being relegated in importance to a mere afterthought.
As Hirsch writes, the verses in Genesis teach (emphasis added)
the godlike dignity of the human body. Indeed the whole Torah rests primarily on making the body holy. The entire morality of human beings rests on the fact that the human body, with all its urges, forces and organs, was formed commensurately with the godly calling of man, and is to be kept holy and dedicated exclusively to that godly calling. Nothing digs the grave of the moral calling of man more effectively than the erroneous conception which cleaves asunder the nature of man. Only recognizing godlike dignity in the spirit, it directs the spirt to elevate itself to the heights, and in mind and thought to soar upwards to a higher sphere, but leaves the body to unbridled license, animal-like, nay lower than animal.
When you hear someone say that our spirit may come from God, but our bodies reflect his will in only the vaguest possible way, that is, in other words, a prescription for moral disaster. Animalism, I mean, of the kind we see around us today.
Do you really still think that ideas don't have consequences? With theistic evolution, naive to its core, hopelessly determined to surrender to the Darwinian spirit of our age whenever the opportunity arises, this is what we're up against.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I edited my previous comment, because it had errors of expression
The way I usually interpreted what 'being created in G-d's image':
1) The human soul was created in G-d's image, the body is the vessel/container which contains the soul/the spiritual essence. I think it is a suitable metaphor, because the vessels (e.g. cups or vases) are often made of earth/clay (according to the Bible originally human body is created from earth (adamah) and after death of a person, the body disintegrates to dust/soil/earth. Hence the first human was called 'Adam'.
2) Hence we need to respect the body (the vessel which contains the soul) and take care of it well, because it contains the soul. Also, obviously we need to respect the appearance and features of the human body, because tthe body (the vessel) was designed to be a suitable container for the soul (which is holy).
I do think that ideas have consequences, but that does not justify lying about what scientists have discovered or implying that we are better off being ignorant than learning something that might show a religious teaching to be erroneous. The evidence is clear. If you cannot defend your religious teachings without lying about this evidence, you are not doing anyone a favor. Choosing to demean and attack those who support theistic evolution does not make your doctrines true. Mocking scientists and misrepresenting what they have discovered won't fix the problems that your dogma has to deal with.
People did not become bad just because scientists discovered that a lot of religious origins doctrines were mistaken. They were bad and good in similar measure before then.
David Klinghoffer said:
"... not His face, because He doesn't have a face or a body or any physical aspect, but His spiritual image?"
Now David, how can you make such a claim? The Bible clearly states, and we must take it literally, contrary to your claim, that we look just like your deity because man created God in his own image. Can you provide any evidence to bolster your claim rather than mine?
Furthermore, you said:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..."
Just who, David, is the "US" and "our likeness" in your statement? Are there now multiple intelligent designers vying for the prize of creating humans in THEIR own (real) image? Does that include the Flying Spaghetti Monster as one possible designer? Can you demonstrate otherwise that the FSM is not a viable designer?
You like to take your Bible/Torah literally, except when it doesn't suit your line of argument. You add your own interpretation when it doesn't come out to your liking, don't you?
G-d's image in the oldest Judeo-Christian tradition involves intellect (i.e.reason, intelligence) and free will (volition). G-d and His image are in no way constrained by the limit of the range of human corporeal form seen on planet Earth We as humans enjoy such a privelege as to have intelligence, and free will. Intellect and free will define humanity's reflection of G-d's image. To the first point, intellect: it is through centuries of empirical observation and experimentation that humanity has developed something called the scientific method. Our efforts have revealed much about the processes and results therefrom in the physical world and universe. If reason (a gift from G-d that is part of what defines us as humans and being in G-d's image), has brought forth rational investigation, direct observation, measurement, calculation, etc., and finally conclusions that some form of evolution exists, how can these results be denied prima facie. Through time we may be confident in the truth that science can bring forth. In some sense, such results may be described as Divinely-revealed through the gift of intelligence that G-d has granted us as humans. We as humans also enjoy the ability to choose freely amongst various options. Not all choices are mutually exclusive. Believing in evolution, in no way, excludes room for belief (Faith) that existence itself came forth (or derives) from an act of choice . . . in the Judeo-Christian tradition, from the will of G-d. As humans, perhaps the greatest challenge is to expand always the realm of understanding through reason, but never to lose sight of inspiration and possibilities that derive from free will and faith. Peace and goodness.
I'm a newbie Christian - 61 years old - a high school biology teacher. Evolution always kept me from being a Christian. Is the "science" of evolution right but the "science" of salvation and resurrection wrong? I always believed the science of evolution until I looked at the evidence - the fine print. There is none.
Science tells us you don't come back from death. So, can the Bible be right on some things but wrong on others? The whole Bible is right or it is wrong. If the Bible was written by God (inspired) then I assume we can understand it without a PH.D in theology. It is not God's intention to trick us. It is easily understood. It means what it says. The message of salvation is simple. The instructions are simple and easily understood.
To me, the Bible clearly states that we are formed in God's (Christ's) physical image.
In John 5: 46-47 we are told by Jesus that if we do not believe what Moses wrote about him (Jesus), how can we believe what Jesus says?
Moses wrote that we are formed in the Creator's image.
Jesus, the Creator, told Moses about Creation.
In John 1: 1-3 we are told that Christ (the Word) was with God before the world was created. We are also told that not only was the Word with God but the Word was the same as God. We are also told that through the Word God made all things, that not one thing in Creation was made without him.
That makes Christ the Creator.
In Col 1:16 we are told that the whole universe was created through Him and for Him.
Further, In Revelation 21 We are told there will be a new earth with a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven from God and that now (vs 3) "The dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."
This is simple: Christ is the Creator and we are made in his image. He died so that we may live. Eventually there will be a new earth and we will live with him for eternity.
It is easy to make things complicated and confusing with different points of view from PH. D's that aren't based on evidence. "Science" does this all the time as the current theme seems to be to hype everything - from the latest flu to global warming. Conjecture is a fancy name for guessing. Reasonable, informed, logical guesses are still guesses.
To me it's simple.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.