This remark almost sounds like it was written by Douglas Adams.

>>''image'' as used in Gen 1:26 = hebrew rendered as = tselem {tseh'-lem} - from an unused root meaning 'to shade' : a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance, hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.<< [Strong's]

Editorials shouldn't comment without doing some simple research

I don't think they where making a theological argument, only a scientific and philosophical one. Besides even a resembleance shows a lot about the character of that which is portray, does it not?

If a child is born with Down Syndrome, she might still look like her parents, although there will be some significant differences because of the birth defect. You would not be able to say that because this child is different in some extreme ways that she has no family resemblance to her parents and therefore could not be their child.
We are made in God's image, but we are tainted by sin, while He is perfection.

How many parents say their children are the image of one or both, the minute they are born. Any stranger who sees one of these wrinkled balls of new life might have trouble with the connection. The parents see things others can't, and include the faith that the children will grow more like the parent,in both looks, and behaviour. I'm not sure the phrase Image of God' was meant't to refer to a reflection of god, as to the idea that man and god have a separate identity. Physical features are not important. Behaviour is.