Pages:     || 2 |


(1953 . .) , , . , . , , , . , , . , , . , , . .

Levan Gvelesiani Wiesbadener Str. 56 D61350 Bad Homburg Tel: +49 171 803 1712 Email: lgvelesiani@tonline.de Web: www.gvelesiani.de Man as Gods Image essay of an interpretation first published in Philosophical Investigations by Academy of Philosophical Scienses of Georgia. Tbilisi. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; (Gen. 1:27) We can say that this biblical word has, to a large degree, formed our selfconsciousness, molded our selfconfidence and strengthened our selfacceptance. From these words, we learn that we are not like all other creatures around us; we resemble our Creator.

However, when observing what happens around us in nature, but also in society, we ask ourselves wherein this similarity lies. What can these words in the bible mean? Is man like God, does he really look like God? Which are the properties which are similar to God in man? To answer these questions, we must define the concept of man in relation to other living creatures. Natural science, especially biology, has clearly shown that mans body resembles that of many other creatures on earth. The similarity of the genetic structure in chimpanzees with man is even 99%. Mans body is genetically as well as structurally very similar to that of an animal.

A certain similarity can in part also be found in the behavior of man. The instincts and motives which influence man in connection with food, sexual and social life, but also with some other necessities for survival are to a great extent alike in animal and man.

These facts induced many scientists to speak of a common natural descent of animals and men. Darwinism, a theory based on tautology and by far not yet proved, has gained a dominant role in biological sciences in the last 140 years and influences many fields of research in nearly all directions. The idea of evolutionism, the natural descent of the complex from the simple form has consciously and unconsciously pervaded nearly all fields of science. Even those scientists not being friends of vulgar materialism (e.g. Max Scheler) speak of mans development.[i] [1] Moreover, Darwinism has established itself in schools and universities as the overwhelming and only correct theory of mans coming into existence/ development.

According to Darwinistic conception, a living being is first of all a physical being, arising from the natural biological development and maintaining its ground during a course of development lasting millions of years. Evolutionists want to describe the state of affairs as if evolution were already a fact instead of deriving the theory from the facts. Facts, however, are lacking today just as they did last century when Darwinism was born. Even the founder of this theory, Charles Darwin, arranges the matter, starting out from observances regarding the domestication of animals, as if the development of species by natural selective breeding were a fact already and only the mechanism of this process needed to be explained. His model is based on the observance of domestication and of variations of living beings within the species.[ii] [2] Where Darwin got the idea that species develop from other species, remains nebulous and unexplained.

There are many examples of this scientific erroneous opinion at a later time. However, we only want to state one, written by one of the most renowned neoDarwinists. On genetic similarity of living beings, Richard Dawkins writes Evidently the total information capacity of genomes is very variable across the living kingdoms, and must have changed greatly in evolution, presumably in both directions[iii] [3] [The italics are the authors. L.G.] Here we have a transparent example of how evolutionists put the cart before the horse: Evolution is a fact, und if living beings are similar or different, evolution should have induced this. Facts are pressed into theory, without questioning the probability of the theory. Thus, as evolutionists say, if man and jellyfish resemble one another in various genetic or other aspects man must be the distant successor of jellyfish or a similar being and all this should have been induced by evolution (according to Charles Darwin by coincidental gradual changes favored in the struggle for existence). One of the characteristics of Darwinism is the reductionism, according to which the intellectual properties of living beings are reduced to the development of the physical body. However, in the theory of Darwinism it remains unclear, how anything new in the world comes into being. Also unexplained is, how specialized species swing from one extreme to the other in a very short space of time. How do living beings manage the leap over the abyss lying between the specialized species? There are other problems of the living world the Darwinists cannot solve.

The fact of similarity in the mechanisms of life in living beings is complex, and no Creationist will doubt this. The problems begin where the descent is concerned. The Darwinists believe similarity (or the difference in similarity) means relationship by descent. This is really the main issue (point of controversy) between Creationists and Evolutionists. The development in modern genetics aggravated the controversy between Darwinists and the followers of Creationism. If man is a being similar to an animal, evolutionists claim, he is an animal also in his nature and differs only slightly or in degree from other animals. This is allegedly supported by genetics.

As our goal here is not a detailed critic of the theory of Darwinism (other authors have done this much more creditably[iv] [4] ), we only mention that Darwinism has neither the facts for the truth of the theory nor can explain the variety in nature. Of course, the similarity of man with animals cannot automatically be ascribed to a common descent. Relationship does not necessarily point to descent.

Materialistic scientists often disregard the fact of tremendous and vital differences between man and the animal world. This concerns the body as well as the behavior. The genetic similarity between man and monkey does not speak for a common descent, but against it. If it was only 1% of difference that matters, mans behavior and his way of living should not differ so enormously from that of a monkey. 1% of genetics cannot bridge the abyss existing between chimpanzee and man.[v] [5] If language, arts, science, upright walk, fabrication of ingenious instruments and tools, epimetheuistic (analysis of the past) and prometheuistic behavior (activity planned in advance) among many other things were carried by this 1% of genes, the difference between various species of monkeys with their genes varying by 1 to 5% should be obvious, too. This, however, is not the case. This 1% of difference on the genetic level cannot correspond with the quantitative abyss lying between man and animal. Even some of the evolutionists (partly doubting the doctrine), for example Brian Goodwin that the importance their scientific colleagues attribute to genetics is not adequate. [vi][6] Genetics do play a role, but the decisive factor are those properties which only man and no other being has. These properties were mentioned above.

You can retort that many of the properties mentioned above are in part or as a trace existent in various animals. Many animals behave socially, they build something, they use primitive tools, they have a communication based an a behavior similar to language etc. What then remains in man? What is specific in man which gives us the opportunity to distinguish man from animal and call him Gods image? The godlike in man cannot lie in what man has in common with the world of animals and plants, but in those things where he differs from the other beings. Two important points can be named which are essential and decisive. These two points create a unbridgeable abyss between man and the world of all other living beings. Man does not differ from the animals by degrees, as Darwinists and other evolution theorists maintain, but qualitatively, in his fundamental properties. These difference are found in the body as well as in the intellectual field and cannot point to a common descent, but to one Creator.

As many anthropologists unambiguously confirm mans bodily structure is characterized by a high nonspecialization. An animal is finely tuned to its environment. It lives in the given environment and is an essential part of it. The animal body uses its limbs as tools for the interaction with this environment and adapts to it. Its body is extremely and minutely specialized. Limbs and organs are utilized as tools. Man on the other hand is a generalist; he has and inclination for everything, but is not really specialized for anything regarding the interaction with the environment. In all fields of specialization man is excelled by one or another animal. Man can run, but not as fast as a panther, man can swim, but not as well as a dolphin, man can climb, but not as well as a monkey etc. Man has nearly all properties found in animals in an underdeveloped form, sketchily as it were. As the actual materialistic anthropologist Arnold Gehlen cites Friedrich Nietzsche, man is the not yet finished animal. Gehlen himself calls man unfinished, unspecialized, unadapted, primitive, defective[vii] [7] and refers to Herders observations. Thus Hermann Poppelbaum in his fundamental work Mensch und Tier[viii] [8], Wolfgang Schad[ix] [9], Wolfhart Pannenberg[x] [10], Max Scheler and others. Man is, as it were, immature, childlike. In man everything is predisposed, but nothing completely developed, apart, perhaps, from the abilities being connected with the intellectual. If it were a matter of descent and evolution, man should not descend from the monkey, but the monkey from man, because the primates limbs are much better developed and more finely tuned to their environment than mans. In comparison with an animal, man is a generalist making tools. To manage his environment man has the ability of forming the environment.

In order to practice this generalisticinstrumentalistic activity, man needs something which selects him from the ranks of the other living beings. First of all, this is the property of planned activity. Man is a Janus being in the sense of time. His two faces are Epimetheus and Prometheus. As Epimetheus he looks to the past and gains experience. With the other face he looks into the future and plans his future activities. Man knows time. He structures time (in the sense of Eric Berne[xi] [11] ) and works in time. This work results in an artificial world. Man builds, unlike an animal, a new artificial world between himself and nature. In his important work Was ist der Mensch? Wolfhart Pannenberg writes: He becomes lord of the world by an artificial world which he spreads out between himself and his surroundings.[xii] [12] Mans creative activity producing this artificial world surrounding him is one of the most important human abilities at all. When analyzing this activity we see that just the creative abilities are those distinguishing man from the rest of the animal world. Some animals can build to a small extent, but they do not create a technology. Technology is the art of changing the materials to be found in nature and to place them between oneself and nature. We cannot expect this from any animal. The materials animals take from nature for building or other use are not treated, but used in the state they were found. Only man can sharpen the stone to an axe.

Pages:     || 2 |

2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .