Both of us say, "God Said it; I believe it; and that ends it." and we mean what we say. Unfortunately, many folks hide behind that simplistic declaration, and use it as a shield against faithfully seeking to understand what God really said in Genesis.
Face it: acknowledging that one is "made in the image of God" is heady stuff. It is also dangerous, in that misunderstanding the true nature of God can lead one to hurtful hubris and wasted emphasis on the importance of this mortal body.
IMCO, whether they will admit it or not, the interpretation of Genesis by many "anti-evolution creationists" has been mis-directed and deluded by anthropomorphic images like this famous, but very seductive painting:
One (erroneous) message inherent in this image is that the body on the left was modeled after ("in the image of") the body on the right. Even subconscious acceptance of that message can color a believer's understanding of Genesis so as to place undue importance on how man's physical body arrived at its present state. That is a slippery slope toward hubris and undue emphasis and energy expenditure on antievolutionism.
I know whereof I speak: I was under that selfsame delusion -- until intense study of Scripture and of physical science -- together -- led me to understand why this Commandment,
Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
Was placed second only after,
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Clearly, the Second Commandment not only prohibits the creation and worshiping of "graven" (frescoed?) images, it warns us away from the dangerous, but mortal, temptation to "put a human face on God", who, according to Scripture, is Spirit. Such anthropomorphism not only degrades God, it elevates man's perception of this earthly body to the point that many feel the need to defend its (non-existent, IMCO) sanctity from any attempt to discern the processes involved in its development.
I find it to be curious, indeed, that many believers who (like I) look forward with hope to our souls' discarding of this frail, aching, fat, skinny, ugly, etc. vessel, perversely defend its genesis as if it were something more than a mere container for their souls and spirits.
To Michaelangelo's credit, the center of his painting is not the fully-formed (evolved from the "dust of the earth"?) and mature body of Adam on the left -- already matured, awake and aware...and reaching out to God. Nor is it the absurdly anthropomorphized representation of God on the right. (Why not a burning bush, or a pillar of fire or smoke or some other form in which God's Spirit has manifested?)
The center of his painting is, indeed, the narrow gap between God and Adam -- bridged by a tiny spark representing the "pneumos" -- the "Breath of Life" -- the Spirit and Likeness of God -- indwelling the first Man whose body and brain were (finally) developed to the point of being capable of housing God's Spirit.
I rejoice in having a spirit and soul, "in the image of God". But I place minimal importance on how my fellow scientists attempt to explain how my soul's mortal transporter reached its present state of development.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, I have my own explanation for this particular body's sorry state: genetics, old age and bad diet... '-)