Friday, November 29, 2013

Genesis ≠ Evolution: Kinds


            In the last post, I talked about how the “days” to “ages” argument from theistic 

evolutionists (and OECs, though they are not the topic of this post) does not fit with the literal 

details Moses provided. The subject of this post will be another oft-mentioned phrase Moses uses 

in Genesis one. In verses 1:11, 12, 21, 24, and 25, Moses writes, “after his kind.”

            He writes that the trees yielded fruit after his kind (11 and 12). He wrote that the great 

whales and every sea creature after his kind (21). He does the same with land animals. What does 

this mean for theistic evolutionists? Before we get to that, let’s examine the word “kind”.

            The Hebrew word for “kind” is min. Min meant the definition of “species” in the past, but 

it does not mean the definition of “species” today. When we call something a species today, it is 

very specific and exclusive in that, for an animal to be one of that specie, it has to meet certain 

detailed requirements. No, that is not the “species” min means. I will give you the link to the article at 

the end, but for now, min meant and means something closer along the lines of today’s genus (species 

is the most specific classification, with genus being second closest to it). So when Moses wrote that 

they reproduced “after their kind”, he was saying they would produce similarly to the English 

definition of genus.

            Now back to theistic evolution (TE). This is a problem for this camp because they want 

to incorporate evolution into the Bible. The problem is that the Bible makes it very difficult for 

them to do that. You see, for Moses to be correct in saying that the birds and the bees reproduced after 

their own kind (genus), that means that they cannot and have not changed into other kinds.

            This is the crux of evolution. Evolution states that one-celled organisms evolved into 

multiple-celled organisms that gradually evolved into larger and larger organisms until they 

reached… us! For evolution to be true, animals have to be able to change kinds. Moses puts a 

kabosh on that by saying, “Nope! Once they were created, these animals only produced 

offspring of the same kind.” There were and are different species, sure. We see that when new types of 

dogs are bred. But that dog cannot become a pig. Naturally, observational evidence backs this up.

            Evolution is molecules to man, kind to another kind. The Bible clearly does not support 

this. God wrote that the kinds (dogs, cats, whales) reproduced after their kind. Whenever you 

are debating (nicely and with love) a TE, just state that evolution can’t be true because “all 

animal kinds have only reproduced after their kind. Molecules to man goes against the Bible.” At this 

point, you’ll have God’s Word on your side. You can show them where God wrote that animals 

produced after their kind, and not any other.

            What response will he or she give you? I don’t know, but it probably will be a shrug and 

a “Genesis is symbolic” argument, which doesn’t answer your argument. If Genesis is symbolic, 

TEs have to be able to defend its symbolism. They can’t do that, because there are too many 

literal details. I’ve just given another one.



P.S. The link is here.

No comments:

Post a Comment