It does not specifically say that. But it does say God formed man out of the "dust of the ground" or "clay," depending on translation. To form something is not an instant event -- it's a molding through transitory forms to a final one. Seems to me that the "ape" or "ape-like" creature is a apporpriate transitory form, between formless clay and formed man.
Which raises an interesting point... You seem to be saying that seeing man as evolved from apes means imagining God as an ape. If so, does that mean you see God as formless dust?
It also doesn't say He created DNA. It doesn't say how he changed the atomic structure of "dust" into H2O, the primary component of living creatures. Genesis leaves out lots and lots of details, including the one how God created man at the end of a long chain of evolution.
And spare me that the Bible isn't a science book, blah blah blah. I realize that.
No, you don't, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have to wonder if maybe God didn't anticipate these arguments so he made it clear what he did.
No, Genesis is not clear at all. The description of something as huge and complex as the universe and all the life in it would take libraries bigger than earth has ever seen to completely document. And that's ignoring how all that was *created*, I'm just talking about complete documentation of all that exists.
You claiming that God "made it clear what he did" in a few pages of Genesis makes me wonder if you understand the difference between reality and fantasy.
And I wouldn't vote for a communist, socialist, atheist, and probably some more "ists" that escape me now.
That's why they don't tell you what they are, so they don't lose the votes of people like you. My original point was that when someone outs themselves as a creationist, they lose the votes of entire segments of the population, just as if they had outed themselves as a communist. The only difference is which segment of the population will now refuse to vote for them.
*Now* do you understand why it is important for conservative politicians, even creationist conservative politicians, to avoid the subject of ID and creationism, and focus on other important issues that have broader appeal?
You can disagree if you want, but if you do, the discussion should be about why it is *not* damaging to the conservative agenda for politicians to endorse creationism and ID.
If there ARE Conservative Evolutionists who would vote for a Liberal Evolutionist over a Conservative Creationist; just what does it say about which ideology they value the most?