My point:
Humans are animals.
The Bible shows a different origin for each - god created animals, and then, individually, men.
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The superiority of humanity - that it is "above animal" is seen in that we are in God's image. We are stewards.
If asked, a Christian would say that yes, we are better than animals.
Man ate the Forbidden Fruit - he has knowledge of good and evil, which animals don't. Your idea of the division between man and beast being their intelligence is somewhat linked to this, although this may be slightly more epistemological.
So, really, what I'm saying is that there is an assumption that man is the best. He is the supreme being on earth. This is in many ways supported by the Bible. There isn't, for example, a bird heaven or a Bible for pigs. They're not the ones God speaks to. They're not in his image. Another supporting factor for this hypothesis seems to be linguistic, and other supports include intelligence and appreciation of music. Even the terms support this - they are "human" and "animal." That homo sapiens is simply the name for our species isn't really considered that much. There are the humans, then the lower forms of life, the generally-labelled "animals." To quote Homer Simpson, to weasel is "what separates us from the animals."
Some go so far as to say that we were never animals. These seem to be the same ones who believe that the world was made in six days, and that evolution is a myth. Hence the out roar against our shared ancestry with other animals. Such a revelation - that we're not so very different from animals at all - strengthens the theory of evolution's viability to such, if those that go against it can be reasoned with.
How many Christians would say there isn't a division between man and beast, anyway?
Does it matter?
I may have answered this previously, but I got interrupted mid type, so I may be repeating myself. But yes, it does matter - people who think like that think there is a distinction between man and beast. Not that we're just ones who have developed certain traits that enable us to appreciate certain things, but that we are different. A cat and dog are different, but they're both still animals. Man and dog? Man and Pig? Giraffe? What most Christians get from the Bible is that they are the owners of animals - stewards - and as such can kill them for sport, eat them ad infinitum, eve use them in medicinal practices instead of humans, and so on. My R.E. teacher was one such as this.