"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24)
In order to answer this question, we must be very clear about what we are specifically referring to when we use the word, “Evolution.”
Since Charles Darwin first published his books, “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man”, a great debate has erupted between proponents of his theories and those who reject them. Today, 150 years or so later, the debate is as heated as ever. Personally, I am not really interested in participating in the debate. There are a great deal of ideas and opinions being thrown around in relation to it, but I am only concerned with what the Word of God has to say about the matter.
First of all, we should define the term “Evolution.” This means different things to different people, but a commonly held definition of biological evolution involves nothing more than a change in genetic material from one generation to the next. Such a broad, inclusive definition is not seriously rejected by anyone. All we have to do to confirm such a phenomenon is to observe two parents and their offspring. Traits from both parents are passed on to the child resulting in new and unique features not found in either parent.
But what about new species “evolving?” What about common ancestors within groups of living organisms? In Genesis 1, we have a phrase repeated several times, “After its kind.” What exactly is a kind? A kind refers not to a specific species, breed, or division within the species. It is broader than this. God created plants and animals after their kind meaning that He probably created a prototype of each genus or family from which other species and sub-species would eventually arise. Instead of separately creating a horse, a zebra, and a donkey, He created one common prototype equine from which these others would descend. I believe that such an interpretation would easily remedy the problems that have been suggested concerning where Noah would have put each of the more than 265,000 species of moths and butterflies on the Ark.
I would like to make clear, however, that such an interpretation of the Creation account given in the book of Genesis does not allow for the conclusions that some have made concerning the function of “evolution.” This is where problems arise when we begin to extrapolate from this that ALL species share a common ancestor and everything from hickory trees to great white sharks evolved from a single prototype that simply arose by itself. There is a great distinction between the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the plants of the field, and the beasts of the forest. There is a greater distinction still between all of these things and mankind. Man is the only creature said to be made in God’s image. The word kind is never applied in relation to man. Man was created, he did not evolve.
It is also worth noting that new genetic information has never been “gained” in the process of genetic change. It has either been lost or conserved, but never gained. Some speculate that creatures have become more and more advanced as they gained more useful genetic traits, but such is not the idea here. What we have is simply the further dividing and partitioning of an original gene pool. A new kind has never resulted, just a distinction within that specific kind.
Interesting and I believe for the most part accurate. The subject is so complicated however it’s difficult to even define.
You can’t have a foot in each camp! Gods word clearly says “After his kind” Gen: 1,24
A horse has 32 pairs of chromosomes, a donkey only 31 pairs. If the two are crossed they produce male offspring that are completely sterile, demonstrating that they must be separate species. The same applies to crossing a domestic cow with a buffalo or bison bull. The male calves are sterile, although the females can show some level of fertility.
If we are looking at horses. All the differing kinds of “Horses” are living today becouse of man breeding them over the centuaries. to suit our purpose.
The wild breeds have all but died out and many of those origional breeds are no longer with us.
They were all horses however with 32 pairs of chromosomes. A donkey is not a horse as we know it. Just becouse it “looks” like a horse it is not. Lions and tigers also beget sterile offspring and yet they are commonly refered to as “cats” . Check your scipture and you will see that Adam was required to bring, Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
The reason why this was required was to. Keep the created seed alive on the face of the Earth, after the flood… The seed that had been saved from distruction in the “kinds” that were now safe within the protection of Noah’s Ark. That was Gods plan for his creation, to be perfect in their generations. That is also Gods plan for mankind “to be perfect in their generations” ….. In Christ. …..I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live: (Due: 30,19)
May the blessings of our Lord be with you all;
Rakau
Rakau,
Hi, thank you so much for reading this and taking the time to share your thoughts about it!
It is unfortunate that this article struck you as indicative of my having a “foot in each camp”, I certainly would never characterize my own views as such. Other posts I have written on this website, I feel, make it clear that I am very much opposed to the teachings of Darwinian Evolution. The point that I attempted to make with this article was that, while the narrative of Scripture refutes the erroneous conclusions of the Darwinian model which suggests that all life as we know it is rooted in a common ancestor, it does not necessarily preclude the idea of adaptation or microevolution. The Hebrew term translated “kind” can have a broader sense than a single species. “The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon” gives the following entry for the term:
Is this what the Genesis account is clearly telling us happened? No. I would certainly not be dogmatic in insisting that this is the correct interpretation, it is only a speculative idea based on the use of the language. It could very well mean that God especially created each of those 265,000 plus species of moths and butterflies which are flying around today and, if that is so, I have no problem with that. I wrote this post merely to suggest another possible interpretation.
As far as what you have noted about the abilities of current species to successfully procreate, I am not certain that this is evidentiary that a common equine or feline “prototype” did not exist. Some genus (such as bears) have produced reproductively viable hybrid offspring. As you mentioned, many of the wild horse breeds died out, but from where did they emerge in the first place? Did God individually create each one? Again, I admit that I do not know.
Like I said, this is not a topic that I am willing to go to great lengths to defend a position. I believe the Biblical account is accurate and that the Word of God is true, and how we precisely interpret this particular matter, in my opinion, is a peripheral issue; not a crucial one. My intent in writing this article was to demonstrate that the Genesis narrative is not as restrictive as many are making it out to be. There are definitely “non-negotiable”, clear-cut doctrines which no man is at liberty to tamper with, but I honestly do not feel that specifically how God created each type of bird and fish is one of them.
Thanks again for taking the time to read this and share your comments. God bless you and I look forward to reading more of your insightful comments in the future.
In Christ,
Loren
*Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. Ontario : Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996, S. H4327
Thank you Loren.
I will humbly take your council.
I quite agree with you on your last input. I would also suggest that the animals that were originally saved from the destruction of the flood were but a selective genies pool that would eventually re-populate the earth, albeit this time without the interference of the “sons of God” or as many would believe the “fallen one’s”.
We have the example of mankind himself, all deriving from our first parents but clearly displaying differences within the same genus pool.. All humans created in Gods image but having our own differences. All created in Gods likeness but individual in perspective. All lost but able to be saved for the glory of the Father. When the garden of Eden is once more without the flameing swords.
Gods plan of creation was outworked even after he had his rest on that first Sabbath. His creation was finished from the laying of the foundations but his work continues to this very day. He would have all of mankind “perfected” in his “new creation” as he would have all creation bought into perfection through that final sacrifice on Mount Calvary. The day will come when the Lion lays down with the Lamb, When his beloved creation sings in harmony with his Angels, Glory ,Glory, Glory, Lord God almighty. O for that day when we all sing in the same voice, when our harmonies are all in tune and our praise reaches the far corners of our Fathers kingdom. When our King is at last placed on his eternal throne. Victorious
Bless you all in Gods Grace:
Rakau