Christians, do I need to teach dc that people are animals??

[mathnmusic]

We're doing Classical Conversations at home, and cycle 1 science includes the classification of living things. Ds8 is having hard time accepting that people are in Kingom Animalia, revolts against the idea really. He's had years of Bible teaching about God creating people distinctly separate from animals, made in His image, whereas animals are not. I've explained that this is the world's classification system, tried the tactic that people have to be in Animalia because we're not plants, fungus, monera, protists, but he's still having a hard time understanding why people are classified as an "Animal". Do I really need to insist he accept this? If so, how to explain it to him? As a biology major at UC Berkeley, I said in conversation with my Bible Study teacher at college that people are one type of animal, and she rebuked me for that, saying "no, people are not animals".

 

What are your thoughts? We're a Bible believing household here, so I understand this may be completely nonsensical to non-Christians, which is ok with me. I'm interested in hearing how Christians explain this to their kids. Thanks in advance! :001_smile:

[PeacefulChaos]

I would say that right now I wouldn't push it.

You could try to explain it really simply - humans are more like animals than plants because we breathe, have organs, etc (I know, that's probably really way off of the technicality of it), so we are classified with them.

But I wouldn't make him accept it. He's young - when he gets older he can process and understand it better.

[laughing lioness]

We are mammals, too.

[Onceuponatime]

However it happened, people have all the physical characteristics of animals. We have much the same DNA as well. Animal parts are used for replacement parts in humans (like pig heart valves). So yes, I teach my children that physically we are animals. Our being made in God's image is not the physical part of us but the eternal spiritual part. God doesn't have a physical body.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Onceuponatime

[Petrichor]

Maybe change your wording?

 

There's a difference between teaching it as Truth and teaching it as "this is how scientists classify people" I think that if he understands that people are classified as being in kingdom animalia because of the physical similarities they share with animals, and why humans are classified as mammals because of the similarities they have with mammals, maybe even going so far as to explain how studying how the brains and systems of other mammals work can help us understand how human brain and systems work.

 

Perhaps when you test him/ask him questions about it, rephrase it so that the question doesn't seem to imply fact. i.e. instead of asking "Which kingdom do humans belong in?" say "Which kingdom to most scientists believe humans belong in?" Or teach him that sometimes his worksheets and tests will ask him for an answer that he doesn't believe, and that sometimes the worksheet/test is only asking for the widely held opinion/the opinion from his textbook. And that there are many answers in science, but the answers that most people learn are the ones that most scientists agree on.

 

I do not believe in evolution, but when the time comes to study that part of the science curriculum, I will explain our beliefs on the subject, and make sure he understands that a lot of other people have another belief about the origin of man. I do think it is important for kids to understand and know the well-known popular opinions in science and the world, but for them to believe the teachings of our religion.

 

HTH!

[raceNzanesmom]

God created us in His image and likeness, and gave us dominion over animals. That doesn't mean were are completely separate from animals. We were, after all, made by the same Creator. As mammals we classify as an animal. That doesn't make us equal to other mammals, it just means we have similar characteristics (live births, mother's milk, etc). The same way if an artist created a bunch of paintings we could likely see similarites in them even if some were superior to others.

 

If, however, it causes him to struggle I'd let it go for now. He's young. As he matures he'll understand the difference.

[dangermom]

However it happened, people have all the physical characteristics of animals. We have much the same DNA as well. Animal parts are used for replacement parts in humans (like pig heart valves). So yes, I teach my children that physically we are animals.

 

:iagree: Perhaps it would help if you made a distinction between animals and beasts. Theologically speaaking, other creatures can be called beasts--not human in intelligence, etc. Beasts also cannot sin--they fulfil the measure of their creation. 'Animal' covers people and beasts.

 

 

Also, go Bears! :001_smile:

[raceNzanesmom]

Maybe change your wording?

 

There's a difference between teaching it as Truth and teaching it as "this is how scientists classify people" I think that if he understands that people are classified as being in kingdom animalia because of the physical similarities they share with animals, and why humans are classified as mammals because of the similarities they have with mammals, maybe even going so far as to explain how studying how the brains and systems of other mammals work can help us understand how human brain and systems work.

 

Perhaps when you test him/ask him questions about it, rephrase it so that the question doesn't seem to imply fact. i.e. instead of asking "Which kingdom do humans belong in?" say "Which kingdom to most scientists believe humans belong in?" Or teach him that sometimes his worksheets and tests will ask him for an answer that he doesn't believe, and that sometimes the worksheet/test is only asking for the widely held opinion/the opinion from his textbook. And that there are many answers in science, but the answers that most people learn are the ones that most scientists agree on.

 

I do not believe in evolution, but when the time comes to study that part of the science curriculum, I will explain our beliefs on the subject, and make sure he understands that a lot of other people have another belief about the origin of man. I do think it is important for kids to understand and know the well-known popular opinions in science and the world, but for them to believe the teachings of our religion.

 

HTH!

 

Good answer!

[Twigs]

What sets people apart from animals is spiritual, but animal classification does not deal with the spiritual. If this were my child, I would not force him/her to believe that people are animals, but would try to help them understand why others do classify people as animals.

 

I might approach it this way.

 

What is life? A need for nourishment and the ability to reproduce. Do humans meet these requirements – yes.

 

You can go through the requirements for the different types of life: plants, fungi, bacteria, etc. and see that humans are not those things.

 

What is an animal? An animal has the ability to move and must ingest its food. Is this true for humans – yes.

 

Animals can be divided into vertebrates (with a backbone) and invertebrates (no backbone). Humans have a backbone.

 

Animals with backbones can be divided into amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals.

 

You can go through the characteristics if each of these and find out that mammals have hair and nurse their young. Humans do these, so humans are mammals.

 

In summary, humans have: a need for nourishment, the ability to reproduce, a backbone, hair, and the ability to nurse their young. They meet all the requirements to be an animal, specifically a mammal.

 

Best wishes.

[Mommyof4ks]

Maybe change your wording?

 

There's a difference between teaching it as Truth and teaching it as "this is how scientists classify people" I think that if he understands that people are classified as being in kingdom animalia because of the physical similarities they share with animals, and why humans are classified as mammals because of the similarities they have with mammals, maybe even going so far as to explain how studying how the brains and systems of other mammals work can help us understand how human brain and systems work.

 

Perhaps when you test him/ask him questions about it, rephrase it so that the question doesn't seem to imply fact. i.e. instead of asking "Which kingdom do humans belong in?" say "Which kingdom to most scientists believe humans belong in?" Or teach him that sometimes his worksheets and tests will ask him for an answer that he doesn't believe, and that sometimes the worksheet/test is only asking for the widely held opinion/the opinion from his textbook. And that there are many answers in science, but the answers that most people learn are the ones that most scientists agree on.

 

I do not believe in evolution, but when the time comes to study that part of the science curriculum, I will explain our beliefs on the subject, and make sure he understands that a lot of other people have another belief about the origin of man. I do think it is important for kids to understand and know the well-known popular opinions in science and the world, but for them to believe the teachings of our religion.

 

HTH!

 

:iagree: We tell our kids that scientists classify us with animals, and we need to know that for tests whether we believe it or not. We teach that there are what we consider right answers and answers testing people are looking for in several subjects, so it is not odd for my kids to accept that.

[mathnmusic]

Thank you for all your replies! They are very helpful.:001_smile:

[swellmomma]

I didn't teach the kids in the beginning that humans were animals. I taught they are mammals. I did emphasis how we are different from other animals in the mammal category and I showed how other mammals are different from each other. But based on the scientific classification this is how we are mammals a,b,c. Yes we are made in God's image but we are mammals.

 

As far as humans being animals, well we say that in a joking manner, related to the nonsense, messes, illmanners etc.

 

Not an evolution thing which may be what is making him so against it ,it is a classification thing. Instead of focusing on animalia, focus on mammal vs reptile vs amphibian etc

[Nestof3]

I teach we are humans, not animals, because I do not believe we are animals, nor do I believe we came from them. I'm fine about discussing similarities -- mammary glands, hair, endothermic, etc. We discuss similarities of all living things.

 

"Look, grasshoppers have legs too." ;)

 

PS -- My kids know about taxonomy and the classification of humans. I was fine teaching them that too.

[Liz CA]

Yes, and there are similarities such as metabolism, cardiovascular details, etc. This does not mean we are animals, it just means we are similar to animals in the mammals category.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

I'm planning on telling my children that we belong in the animal classification because we have the same basic cell structure as animals. Ours is not like plants or any of the other organisms's cell structure.

[CheerioKid]

I think it's an opportunity to explain how classification needs to be objective. There are reasons we are classified as animals....we are not plants, we are not fungi, etc. Explaining why we are mammals, and how we are still unique even though we are categorized with other animals.

[Sahamamama]

My oldest daughter (7.5 years old) is similar to your son. She's been taught as he has, and her reaction was the same. She strongly objects to being classified as an animal! She especially didn't like humans being classified as mammals, for some reason. :confused:

 

You've gotten some good advice, so I won't repeat it. However, I thought it was interesting that your son reacted strongly, as my daughter did. I wonder if it's the age? I imagine their minds will have more flexibility, more capacity for ambiguity, when they are 11 or 12?

 

I'd say give it time, and explain that we can see ourselves one way (spiritually) and also another way (biologically/physically). We've done some BFSU-style lessons on classification, working within the given scientific categories -- Where do you put the rock? Is it living or non-living? Where do you put the leaf? Where do you put the real hamster? Where do you put the toy hamster? Where do you put the toy baby doll? Where do you put the real baby?

 

It didn't seem to help. :D She still wanted a separate, special category for people. I'm not going to fight it. Perhaps the children see it more clearly, since they are more recently arrived.

[ElizaG]

Ite ad Thomam! ("Go to Thomas" in Latin.) Not that I would just yell that at the children. ;)

 

St. Thomas Aquinas talked about three levels of soul. Note that he wasn't using "soul" the same way we do.

 

plants only have a vegetative soul

animals have a vegetative + sensitive soul

humans have a vegetative + sensitive + intellectual soul

 

This page has a much more detailed explanation. It's actually from an Arabic philosophy site. The great medieval Christian, Muslim, and Jewish philosophers were very open to learning from each others' works, as well as from classical sources.

 

Also, an interesting blog post I happened across:

 

How to Change the Way You See Things: Conceptualization, Reconceptualization, and St. Thomas Aquinas

[Scarlett]

We're doing Classical Conversations at home, and cycle 1 science includes the classification of living things. Ds8 is having hard time accepting that people are in Kingom Animalia, revolts against the idea really. He's had years of Bible teaching about God creating people distinctly separate from animals, made in His image, whereas animals are not. I've explained that this is the world's classification system, tried the tactic that people have to be in Animalia because we're not plants, fungus, monera, protists, but he's still having a hard time understanding why people are classified as an "Animal". Do I really need to insist he accept this? If so, how to explain it to him? As a biology major at UC Berkeley, I said in conversation with my Bible Study teacher at college that people are one type of animal, and she rebuked me for that, saying "no, people are not animals".

 

What are your thoughts? We're a Bible believing household here, so I understand this may be completely nonsensical to non-Christians, which is ok with me. I'm interested in hearing how Christians explain this to their kids. Thanks in advance! :001_smile:

 

 

My dh and ds12 have had a few words about this very subject....;) Dh is offended by humans being referred to as animals. I've tried to help ds12 explain to dh that we are animals in scientific classification NOT in behavorior....We have agreed to disagree on it.

 

As far as your son, he just needs to accept that the academic world views things differently and he only needs to pass a test--not change his core belief system. :)

[mommaduck]

We're doing Classical Conversations at home, and cycle 1 science includes the classification of living things. Ds8 is having hard time accepting that people are in Kingom Animalia, revolts against the idea really. He's had years of Bible teaching about God creating people distinctly separate from animals, made in His image, whereas animals are not. I've explained that this is the world's classification system, tried the tactic that people have to be in Animalia because we're not plants, fungus, monera, protists, but he's still having a hard time understanding why people are classified as an "Animal". Do I really need to insist he accept this? If so, how to explain it to him? As a biology major at UC Berkeley, I said in conversation with my Bible Study teacher at college that people are one type of animal, and she rebuked me for that, saying "no, people are not animals".

 

What are your thoughts? We're a Bible believing household here, so I understand this may be completely nonsensical to non-Christians, which is ok with me. I'm interested in hearing how Christians explain this to their kids. Thanks in advance! :001_smile:

There is a certain part of us that makes us distinct from animals, but biologically we fall under Kingdom Animalia since we are not Plants. What are the things that we share with Animals that make us fall under that Kingdom? Explain that. Why do we NOT fall under the other Kingdoms? Explain that. Then, for additional and religious study, explain how we are biologically animals, but explain what God has done to create us to be a bit different than animals. Then you can move into the responsibility that man was given in caring for the rest of the animal kingdom and the other kingdoms.

[*Michelle*]

Ite ad Thomam! ("Go to Thomas" in Latin.) Not that I would just yell that at the children. ;)

 

St. Thomas Aquinas talked about three levels of soul. Note that he wasn't using "soul" the same way we do.

 

plants only have a vegetative soul

animals have a vegetative + sensitive soul

humans have a vegetative + sensitive + intellectual soul

 

:iagree:

 

This is how we've answered the question, adding in that the angelic beings are souls without form. Also, we emphasize that we are souls and we have bodies, not that we're bodies that have souls.

[Parrothead]

Ite ad Thomam! ("Go to Thomas" in Latin.) Not that I would just yell that at the children. ;)

 

St. Thomas Aquinas talked about three levels of soul. Note that he wasn't using "soul" the same way we do.

 

plants only have a vegetative soul

animals have a vegetative + sensitive soul

humans have a vegetative + sensitive + intellectual soul

 

This page has a much more detailed explanation. It's actually from an Arabic philosophy site. The great medieval Christian, Muslim, and Jewish philosophers were very open to learning from each others' works, as well as from classical sources.

 

Also, an interesting blog post I happened across:

 

How to Change the Way You See Things: Conceptualization, Reconceptualization, and St. Thomas Aquinas

Those are very interesting. Thanks for the links.

[SailorMom]

(not Christian, but have a very stubborn kid :) ) If, after much explanation, he won't budge - I'd say, "Well- that's the way it is and I don't really think the rest of the world cares if you agree, " and kinda laugh - but also make the point that it isn't up to him :)

[GoVanGogh]

If, after much explanation, he won't budge - I'd say, "Well- that's the way it is and I don't really think the rest of the world cares if you agree, " and kinda laugh - but also make the point that it isn't up to him :)

:lol:

I have had to do that with my stubborn child. He does not like the way clocks are designed and will go off on the topic whenever given the chance. He has a few other "soapbox" issues, but clocks - currently - is the big one.

[Ipsey]

Even when I was a fundamentalist Bible believer, I believed we were animals. (I'm honestly surprised to hear Christians who don't believe this, sorry. Not to be a put down, but this is just a new one on me. I have talked to lots of Saudi Muslims who have the same view, however.)

 

I take my definition from science, and that was how you tried to explain it to your son.

Kingdoms

Animalia, Protista, Plantae, Monera, Fungi, Bacteria

 

We fit in as animals--animalia.

 

I would have explained it to my children like this. The Bible isn't talking about science of biology in Genesis, it's talking about religious principles. Science doesn't talk about the soul or spirit; that's not its realm. We understand soul and spirit separately from science; these are religious concepts.

 

In the Bible, Genesis says animals are different from people, and they are in the _religious_ context. In a scientific context, we are a type of animal.

 

But, it sounds like you've done this.

 

If your son can't accept that (and depending on his age, he just might not be able to--see Piaget for cognitive development for developing children), I'd let it go.

 

One day, he'll probably "get it," whether he believes it or not.

[IsabelC]

Say that humans are a special kind of animal. Explain that the word animal can mean several different things. You believe that humans are animals in the sense that our physical attributes are similar to those of other mammals. But in a different sense, you believe that humans are separate from animals, and that's why the word is also used negatively (treated like animals = badly treated, behaving like an animal = behaving badly, etc). So people are physically animals, but spiritually something different.

 

 

(That's pretty much how I handled the reverse problem, from a secular perspective, when my daughter was objecting to my notion that we are animals. I told her that yes we are an animal species, but because we have evolved to be clever apes capable of acting morally, it is incumbent on us to behave differently to other animals and to fulfil a stewardship role over other animals.)

[Lady Florida.]

Even when I was a fundamentalist Bible believer, I believed we were animals. (I'm honestly surprised to hear Christians who don't believe this, sorry. Not to be a put down, but this is just a new one on me.

 

Me too. I wasn't fundamentalist, but I was Christian. I have to say I'm especially surprised to hear it from classical educators. Are there classical educators who don't teach the following?

 

Kingdom: animalia

Phylum: chordata

Class: mammalia

Order: primates

Family: hominidae

Genus: homo

Species: sapiens

 

 

If your son can't accept that (and depending on his age, he just might not be able to--see Piaget for cognitive development for developing children), I'd let it go.

 

One day, he'll probably "get it," whether he believes it or not.

 

:iagree:

[djsmom]

I teach we are humans, not animals, because I do not believe we are animals, nor do I believe we came from them. I'm fine about discussing similarities -- mammary glands, hair, endothermic, etc. We discuss similarities of all living things.

 

Same here.

[IsabelC]

If your 8yo is really interested, you could also use this to discuss the fact that taxonomy is arbitrary, and is nothing more than a tool to help biologists think about lifeforms.

 

Kids can play a game where they organize a set of living things by coming up with alternative methods of classification. The child might decide to classify by color, for example, putting red parrots and red daffodils in a separate group to canaries and yellow daffodils. How does this classification help us to learn more about birds and flowers? Would size groupings be more useful? Do oak trees have a lot on common with whales because both can grow very large? Why would the generally accepted criteria for kingdom phylum etc groupings be more useful than various possible alternatives? What's so important about defining characteristics, such as the presence or absence of a spinal cord?

 

Is it at all useful, from the biological perspective, to call humans primates because our DNA is so similar to that of chimpanzees? Or does that few percentage points of difference make for such a wide gulf that scientists should really put homo sapiens into its own kingdom?

 

You could discuss how in the past, some living things have been classified, and then their classification has changed when more was learnt. So it's not impossible that the classification for humans could change in future.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Hotdrink

[Dobela]

Me too. I wasn't fundamentalist, but I was Christian. I have to say I'm especially surprised to hear it from classical educators. Are there classical educators who don't teach the following?

 

Kingdom: animalia

Phylum: chordata

Class: mammalia

Order: primates

Family: hominidae

Genus: homo

Species: sapiens

 

 

 

 

:iagree:

I would teach this but emphasize that this is MAN MADE, not a way of classifying created by God. Because it is man made, there are flaws and mistakes. It was desgined by someone to help sort out all the ways creation is alike, and different.

[phathui5]

I'm a Christian and I believe that people are mammals. It's why we lactate.

[Jpoy85]

I teach we are humans, not animals, because I do not believe we are animals, nor do I believe we came from them. I'm fine about discussing similarities -- mammary glands, hair, endothermic, etc. We discuss similarities of all living things.

 

"Look, grasshoppers have legs too." ;)

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

All you need to teach is that scientists classify humans in the animal kingdom.

[Melissa in Australia]

We are mammals, too.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Scarlett]

All you need to teach is that scientists classify humans in the animal kingdom.

 

Exactly.

[Scuff]

My kids accepted it rather easily. Like you said, we're not in the plant kingdom. But perhaps, at 8, I'd just let it go. They're still a bit literal at that age. Perhaps he'll understand it better when he's a little older.

[scrapbookbuzz]

No, we're not animals and I don't teach my kids that we are. However, I do tell them that they will have to be knowledgeable in evolutionary theory to pass the tests later on in (secular) college, since that is what is taught.

[happypamama]

However it happened, people have all the physical characteristics of animals. We have much the same DNA as well. Animal parts are used for replacement parts in humans (like pig heart valves). So yes, I teach my children that physically we are animals. Our being made in God's image is not the physical part of us but the eternal spiritual part. God doesn't have a physical body.

 

I've told my children similar things -- that we are mammals and share some traits with some animals; we birth babies, nurse and nurture our young in similar ways to some animals. And we can often accept parts (like heart valves, not to mention milk) from some animals. But we're the only ones with souls that worship God and are capable of sin and accepting Christ's death on the cross.

 

I love the explanation that "animals" covers men AND beasts -- that makes good sense to me.

 

But for a young kid, I'd probably just let it go for now. And yeah, sometimes you just have to say, "well, that's the way it is" to some kids.

Edited October 1, 2012 by happypamama

[Soror]

I don't understand the thought that teaching that we are animals says that we must come from them. There are all different kinds of animals. We are mammals as someone else said, we provide milk for our young. Just as there are often big differences between various animals so there are differences between humans and other animals. We share some things in common and other things we don't. But it seems easy for them to understand that we think and feel in different ways than other animals, really it is just a crude classification and not some big theological statement to me.

[Bluegoat]

I would teach it. Animals are a particular sort of living thing.

 

Some have suggested that is one thing Satan didn't like about the creation of humanity - he thought combining an animal with an immortal soul was gross. (Just as he thought that the idea of God being incarnate was disgusting.)