Man From Mud Thru Mammals: The Value of Man Amidst Evolutionary Theory

At those points in my week when I devote time to write my book concerning my experiences at seminary, I am occasionally struck by a new argument for a belief which I learned while at seminary.

Many believers who deny the reality of biological evolution as the method by which God creates various biological life, including men, often argue that if Man were in deed biologically descended from some non-human species this would somehow diminish the worth of Man and put into disparage the Christian belief that Man is made in the image of God.

However, this particular argument against evolution (which actually does not address the reality of the theory but only its perceived consequences) is not tenable with arguments of either Scripture or the experience and reason of confessing Christians.

1) The idea that a Man would be deemed worthless by brute origins is not an argument against evolution.

Those who hold to a less poetic view of the creation stories of Genesis 2 and 3 do not believe that Man is deemed worthless because he comes from dirt (Gen 2:7; 3:19). Yet, if they believe that Man has value even though his origins are from mud, then would man be of less value because he is from brute.

In Matthew 6:26, Jesus teaches that Man should not worry about life sustenance because God cares for the birds of the sky, so why shouldn’t he care for Man who is of greater value. Of course, Jesus refers to the greater value of Man, but he is also speaking of the value of animals. However, I have found no instance in the Bible where God shows any value to dirt. If, the anti-evolutionists were consistent in this particular argument against evolution they would make the case that Man has lesser value because he has come from dirt and not animals. Of course, Man does have value despite the fact that he comes from animals, that he comes from dust, and that he ultimately comes from nothing. The value of man is not lessened by his origins or by what he is made of. Man is given value by God and has that value because God says he has value.

2) Often the view is argued that if Man originated in some biologically different from than which he now exists, then this would prove that Man is not made in the image of God.

This is a troubling line of reasoning because it assumes the that Man is only “Man” because it conforms to a general Platonic view of what Man-ness means. By this I mean that it is assumed that anything that is less than what it generally means to be “Man” is somehow less than “Man”.

Such thinking dominated the worldview of men when it came to the value of women and people of other races. Females were said to have less value than males because males were closer to what constituted the “Man-ness”, i.e., “the image of God”. The same was said about Africans, Asians, Native Americans and even Caucasians. Such ideas have largely been eradicated within the Western world though it does continue in various non-Western cultures. Man is not less a Man if he or she is of any racial and sexual persuasions. All our considered Man.

However, such enlightened thinking is still prevalent among many of the liberals in the Western world who argue that fetuses are not Man and are thus without value simply do to the fact that they do not resemble “Man” in its generally accepted form.

I often wonder why they do not take a cue from Dr. Suess’ Horton Hear A Who: “A person is a person no matter how small.”

But such thinking is contrary to our normal experiences.

Is a man less of a Man because he or she has no legs?
Is a man less of a Man because he or she is a “little person”? (of the mini-Me variety)
Is a man less of a Man because he or she is 8 to 9 feet tall?
Is a man less of a Man because he or she has down syndrome?

Or to put it another more Scriptural way, are any of these examples considered to be less than in the image of God?
This is an important question as we deal with evolution, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and cloning.

In terms of evolution, my view of what constitutes Man, I would categorize not just homo sapiens, but neanderthals, homo erectus and even homo habilis as constituting Man as recognized by God, i.e., “made in the image of God”.

In my view the first Man (Adam) was the first creature created by God who was able to have a personal relationship with God. I suspect that such a person was some form of early australopithecus or even an earlier creature. I imagine that (like always) God initiated contact and the creature responded in kind. I think this is what constituted the initial value of Man apart from the other mammals.

Of course, all of this is poetic imagination on my part, but it has made a good short story (for another work-in-progress apart from my book on my seminary experiences).