… we hope readers will agree with us that the relevant part of our origins is not the story of how we acquired the specific details of our body plan – ten fingers, two ears, one nose – or how we lack a marsupial pouch to carry our newborns, or why potty-training takes so long. Nothing about these details is critical to what makes us human. Our humanness is embedded more holistically in our less tangible aspects and could certainly be embodied in creatures that looked nothing like us.
[ … ]
Many may find this thought unsettling and strangely at odds with their understanding of creation, which celebrates that God created us “in his image.”We suggest that this is due to te influence that actual artistic images have had on our view of God and ourselves Because God became incarnate in Jesus, who looks like us, we all too quickly slip into the assumption that God also looks like us. After all, sons generally resemble their fathers! Religious art, like the anthropomorphic paintings of God on the Sistine Chapel, feed into this assumption that God looks like us. But we know, upon reflection, that these intuitions cannot be correct.
– Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press, 2011), p. 201, p. 204-5.
Comments?