With these words, the apostle John identifies God with "the word." As most serious students of the Bible know, "the word" here translates the Gree k logos. According to the commentary in the NIV Study Bible, for the Greeks, logos meant not only the spoken word but also the unspoken word in the mind, that is, the reason. Consequently, it could also mean the "rational principle" that governs the universe. Moreover, in the book of Genesis, we are told a number of times that "God spoke and it was so." Thus, words are connected with God's creative power. However, the use of words, that is to say, language, is not only associated with God, but also with mankind, whom God created in His own image--in Latin, imago Dei. Although there has been considerable discussion about the meaning of this phrase imago Dei, it does at least suggest that human beings, as God's supreme creation, reflect His nature in some ways. It can be argued that one way in which human beings resemble their Creator is that they possess language.
Language, properly understood, seems to be a uniquely human trait. While it is true that various kinds of animals have their own systems of communication, these do not seem to approach the complexity and sophistication of human language. I am not a scientist and so do not have any real expertise to bring to debates about evolution, creation, and related matters. However, I not only have a master's degree in linguistics , but also have been a student and teacher of language for many years. Given such a background, perhaps it is not surprising I have long been skeptical about the claim that human language evolved from simpler forms of communication employed by our (supposed) simian ancestors. In this scenario, human language was initially extremely simple, but gradually evolved towards greater complexity as human beings themselves evolved.
I have at least two problems with this view. First, I think it shows a lack of appreciation for how great the gap is between animal communication systems and human language. Even the languages of so-called primitive peoples, who would presumably be the closest to our alleged evolutionary ancestors, are relatively complex. Thus, there is a lot to explain in order to give a convincing explanation of how human language evolved from ancient apes to the earliest humans. Second, to the best of my knowledge, there is no actual evidence for such a Darwinian evolution of human language. Languages do evolve in the sense that they change over time, but such changes are not generally characterized by a tendency toward increasing complexity (the vocabulary of a language could be said to become increasingly complex as new words as added to it, but often these new words are simply based on existing words or borrowed from other languages). The ancient languages of which we have written records are not noticeably less complex than modern languages, a fact to which I, as a one-time student of Latin and occasional student of classical (ancient) Chinese, can attest.
In short, it can be argued that human language is both evidence for the reality of a Creator and of the resemblance between the Creator and his greatest creation, mankind. This is certainly a topic of considerable interest (to me at least), and perhaps in the future I will have more to say about it.