"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.