Could have... Strengthening the positive by negating the negative?

'Watcher', who posts at http://anglicanoriginsdiscussion.blogspot.com/, recently posted reply to those who say things like 'God could have used evolution to create'. (http://anglicanoriginsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2017/04/could-have.html)

After half of his discussion of the problem, 'Watcher' stated (my emphases):

'God could not have used evolution, because [H]e told us that [H]e didn't.'

'Watcher' goes on to focus on nothing more than the negative half that equation: that evolution is godless, and therefore, could not have been used by God to create.

This mere negation of the primary error is typical of our modern version of scientific creationism, despite our scientific savvy. Namely, it underlines the near-absence of our understanding as to what God actually, deeply ecologically did (of which Genesis 1 and 2 are the source reports).

For one of exactly two prime examples of this shallow one-sidedness is the kind of reply which too many of us YEC's give to the fact that Genesis 1 does not spell out as to the nature of humans' Divine image-bearing, much less does it specify humans' moral duty and culpability. The common reply to this fact is that the account does indeed specify in relation to that 'dominion': that humans are to have dominion over the animals.

But such a reply fails to realize what all which that specification does, and does not, normally imply. Surely, if we were to view that specification as that of what we already know about humans' practical superiority to the animals, then we would admit that that specification is by no means mainly an instruction to us, much less that it is an instruction as to what practical things that we are (and thus likewise are not) to impose upon the animals.

In terms of dominion over anything, there are only two kinds of animal life on the planet. And, though the non-human kind has a measure of dominion over both physical and mental things, the human kind is vastly superior in that regard. This is why this admittedly compact account not only does not specify any practical applications of that 'dominion', but does not mention plants, matter, or mind in the equation.

So, for the mainly verbatim-focused Christian, if he were to lose access to the account in such a manner as to forgot most of its verbatim, and if he therein attempted to reconstruct the forgotten parts purely from his own narrow ideals, he surely would produce a very poor and twisted version of the whole. We are just fallen humans, after all.

So, the authoritativeness of Genesis 1 is not in what God 'said' thereby. Rather, its authoritativeness is in all what truths that God positively implied---and thus what all errors that He implicitly precluded---by its words. And this is the case even if the account was not actually composed by God, but, instead, was composed by Adam and Eve from conversations they had had with Him. 

.