Sydney Smith 
Denysha Taylor The creation story is a topic of great importance to the Christian narrative and, in the outside world, controversy. Young Earth Creationists are often offended by those, Christian or not, who believe humans came to be as a result of evolution, not solely creation by God in 7 days. Much of what we believe it means to be human comes from our understanding of what it means to be made by God and in God’s image. When the need to reconcile these two points of view arises, teachers, youth ministers, and pastors often try to bring these groups together by pulling discussion away from origins and toward function: What is it we do as human creatures and what purpose do the things that make up our bodies serve? This is exactly how Aristotle believed the world should be known.
The function of an object, especially one in nature, can be broken down into sub-functions that are easier to understand. We know that myelin allows nervous signals to travel faster and make us more agile and adaptable to situations. We know that blood carries resources from place to place to ensure each other part of the body can function optimally. From a purely functional point of view, the argument of our origins becomes irrelevant because we can be impressed with what God accomplished either way.
However, Aristotle’s thinking might make man appear to be like animals, because we function in many of the same ways. There is a point at which the traditional Christian narrative cannot rely solely on empirical observation of the world. Humans are certainly different from animals in many observable ways, but there is no way to prove that we have an “official” connection to the divine. Aristotle, were he alive and in the business of commenting on religion, might say we can learn about God by observing humans, citing us being made in God’s image as an example. In my opinion, it’s a stretch to assume that being in God’s image means our physique should be the same, but the point stands. Aristotle’s way of looking at the world, as well as the impact he had on future sciences, probably impacts the way people look at the origins of man more than it does any other part of our Grand Narrative.
Jessica Weeden
10:45 pm, 09.06.13
I like that you pointed out in your first paragraph how Aristotle’s thinking is often found in modern discussion between religious leaders. The question of purpose and function is very much a popular topic of our times and I think it is true that we tend to shy away from arguments of origin and simply be content with being impressed at what God has done…however it is that He did it.
Also, i like your thoughts on being made in God’s image. Aristotle, as an empiricist, did observe man and our purpose. When I hear “made in God’s image” I think that the aspect of our being that are relational, cognitive, and emotional (all things that can’t be tangibly observed like physical appearance) are what makes us most like our Creator. These attributes serve purposes though and function to help us and the rest of humanity– perhaps by engaging rationalism as he might argue.
Rachel Easley
10:42 pm, 09.08.13
Levi, I really enjoyed the Christian perspective you put into your blog post. So true and a good point that Christians define their worth and the way they view the world through the lens of who we are in reference to our faith. That belief system changes and moves us in powerful ways and I equally agree that it can cause conflict between secular sources like Aristotle. I felt like you did a beautiful job pointing out the differences at how we approach looking at things and then combining them to show that perhaps, we are not that different after all. I found this particular sentence wonderfully insightful, “From a purely functional point of view, the argument of our origins becomes irrelevant because we can be impressed with what God accomplished either way.” How lovely it is to fall in love with God when we recognize that no matter how things happen, there is magic simply in the fact they DO in fact happen.