Many fundamentalist Christians take the view that humans are the only part of the physical creation that are created in God's image, and furthermore that God gave us express permission to have dominion over the animals.  This, the logic goes, entitled us to do what we please with animals, providing we do not actually cause them suffering. Improvements in animal welfare to ensure suffering is reduced are therefore encouraged, but there is no moral imperative to stop using animals for food.  In fact, meat eating is expressly allowed in the Bible.

Because humans are more important than animals we are also entitled to use animals in vivisection experiments to test drugs and cure diseases.  Again, suffering should be minimised, but even if it cannot be eliminated entirely, we are still entitled to use animals in this way.

The arguments above are based on specific views of what it means to have dominion and to image God.  These views are being challenged by some theologians.  Furthermore, just because something was condoned in the New Testament does not make it right today.  Paul specifically endorsed slavery, and on one occasion returned a runaway slave to his master, but it would be difficult to find any Christians today who would believe slavery to be right.

Many now interpret the concept of dominion as one of stewardship towards creation.  In the same way that Christ has dominion over humankind but uses this dominion for good, we are to use our power to nurture creation, not to harm it.   Theologian Andrew Linzey has also interpreted our image of God as the image of a servant.  It is therefore our duty to co-operate with God in looking after the Creation, and to give special regard to animals as sentient beings, often mentioned by God together with humans.   It is precisely because we are more powerful than animals that we are required to show them not equal consideration, but more consideration than we show humans in a spirit of noblesse oblige.