my dog earl

I am going on the assumption that Christians don't think that human beings are part of the animal kingdom. That we are in fact a separate entity far removed from primates etc.
If we are so different than animals why are we built essentially the same. We have brains, blood, arms, legs, etc.
Why wouldn't God create us or animals with a totally different design? He could, he can do anything.

seebs

Most Christians think humans are part of the animal kingdom. The rest figure that the similarities in design are because it's such a GOOD design, obviously God wanted to reuse it. You know, like the way cars all have wheels, even though they're done by different manufacturers, and don't share parentage, or something.

But I believe that a majority of humans worldwide agree that, biologically, we're animals, and primates specifically, and indeed, even many who believe in special creation agree that the biological categories are useful.

wildernesse

I have personally met a (southern baptist) kid who *argued* with me that humans weren't animals. I thought my eyes were going to fall slap out of my head during the time. He also witnessed to me half the freaking summer--although I haven't the slightest reason why he assumed I was bound for hell. Must have been all those quick prayers before my meals and all that non-drinking I did. In any event, it was a clear example of how annoying witnessing can be. And, yes, I'm pretty sure everyone knew I was a Christian--although not a Baptist, maybe that was what it was.

Having said that, the very conservative Christians who make up my family, including my grandfather who is a minister in the Church of God, all believe that humans are animals. Maybe not the same as primates, maybe the same as primates, but still animals.

As for this Christian, it's pretty dang obvious we are animals and primates. We're just interesting and complex animals--well, maybe not as interesting as ants or cats, but pretty interesting all the same.

--tibac

my dog earl

Except we are supposed to have souls that can be saved and animals can't get into heaven.

seebs

So? (Note that many Christians are simply agnostic on the question of animal souls and judgement.)

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Humans are a kind of animal; arguably, it makes *more* sense if we're biologically animals, because then we have some explanation for why souls matter, because we're used to seeing ourselves as different.

davidm

Have you ever spoken with Oolon Colluphid in the Evolution forum? A lot of "design," including that in humans, is quite bad. It is not what you would expect from an intelligent designer, but exactly what you would expect from blind, purposeless evolution.

He even has a Web site devoted to rotten design in nature, linked below. Unfortunately if you decide to visit it you'll need to be patient; the page takes a very long time to load even on a fast connection.


http://hometown.aol.co.uk/Dryadsbubb...lon/SMOGGM.htm

seebs

That was my overall impression, I was just pointing out that, among Creationists, "similarity of design" is not seen as much of an argument.

davidm

It is my impression that most Christians accept evolution and few would dispute that we are evolved animals.

But still one might ask, how does a Christian reconcile God's supposed omnipotence and benevolence with the facts of evolution? Evolution is monstrously inefficient and wasteful and it also amounts to a giant blood bath. It represents pain, fear, violence and death on a scale that boggles the mind. If this process is natural and without purpose or motive than we must simply accept it. But if it was intentionally designed than I'd have to go with Borges' "malevolent demiurges" as the most likely source of it.

seebs

Probably.

Well, one common answer is to blame everything on sin.

I don't really have a clear answer to this. I think it may be that a universe made in this fashion has features which are interesting or useful. Maybe God is an artist, and this is an installation piece. I don't find it that troublesome. I guess, I don't have anything else to compare this method to, so I can't find a good framework within which to judge it. I can't name a better mechanism that I know works.

davidm

Seebs, don't you think sin and evolution are incompatible? Sin posits a perfect state before The Fall. Evolution shows there never was a perfect state for the world or any creature in it. It has been death, killing, and ruthless competition for scarce resources right to the start of the food chain.

Or maybe he doesn't exist. That would seem to be the most parsimonious explanation. In any case if he does exist, he could be an artist, or he could be evil, or he could be indifferent. I just don't see how he could be benevolent as people normally define the term. Evolution, if designed, is the antithesis of benevolence.

But an omnipotent God could create the world any way he wanted. It would be no problem. Even I can come up with a plausible alternative to the food chain: Make beings more like plants, drawing energy from the sun.