More from Steve Cornell:

Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet, the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals. The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.

While there might be an atheist or two or more out there who believes that we came about through “blind chance”, most do not.  As I understand it, the scientific model for the mechanics of evolution employ some level of “chance” working through a complex natural order, and leading to results that are either successful within the natural order, or are unsuccessful within the natural order.  In other words, random values, applied within an orderly system will produce orderly, but not necessarily predictable, results.  This is a very different assertion than the ones that the Rev. Cornell ascribes to atheists.

It’s pretty clear that humans are unique among the animals.  Though other animals use tools, we have taken it to a level never seen in other species.  Though other animals have complex social structures, we seem to be able to consciously change and manipulate our social structures in ways that other animals cannot.  While other animals feel emotions, we have a capacity to understand, manipulate, and interpret our emotions in ways that other animals have not been able to demonstrate.

We share a substantial amount of our DNA with our fellow animals, but the difference is obviously significant.

To say we are “not importantly different” would be a tremendously indefensible position.  The differences between humans and other animals is small on a cosmic scale, but clearly, that difference is important.  And it is tremendously important on a human scale.

After all, the differences between humans and the other animals are what make us…well…human.  So we are careful to define, categorize, rank, and qualify them ad nauseum.  Maybe if the similarities were not so great, and the differences so small, we would not ascribe so much importance to them.

If they were not that important to us, we might not feel the need to imbue them with so much baggage.  They wouldn’t have to be proof that God made us to be special.  That need to be special and important and different from the rest of the animals on the planet is part of what makes us different from them…but it alone is not sufficient to deny that we are related to them, and it is certainly not a valid condemnation of random mutation and natural selection as an explanation for the origins of man.