This section will explore answers to the following questions ...
• What are “kinds” in Genesis?
• What’s the difference between species and kind?
• Has a changed in “kinds” been observed?
• What is Taxonomy?
• What is Bariminology?
• What is Homology?
• What are “kinds” in Genesis?
• What’s the difference between species and kind?
• Has a changed in “kinds” been observed?
• What is Taxonomy?
• What is Bariminology?
• What is Homology?
• Do similarities prove Common Design or Common Ancestry?
• What are “kinds” in Genesis? The Bible says God created every kind of living thing on Days Three, Five, and Six of Creation Week. Ten times in Genesis 1 the phrase “according to its [or their] kind” is used in connection with different types of plants and animals. Since two of each kind of land animal [and seven of some] were brought aboard the Ark for the purpose of preserving their offspring upon the earth (Genesis 7:3), it seems clear that a “kind” represents the basic reproductive boundary of an organism. That is, the offspring of an organism is always the same kind as its parents, even though it may display considerable variation. Dogs, for example, exhibit tremendous variety. Yet diverse breeds of dogs can produce offspring with each other - indicating that all dogs are of the same kind. Dogs will not interbreed with cats, however, since they are a different kind. Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. Within their DNA, God placed the potential for tremendous variety, including new species. But every species belongs to its original kind - cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs. [1] So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.” [2]
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
• What are “kinds” in Genesis? The Bible says God created every kind of living thing on Days Three, Five, and Six of Creation Week. Ten times in Genesis 1 the phrase “according to its [or their] kind” is used in connection with different types of plants and animals. Since two of each kind of land animal [and seven of some] were brought aboard the Ark for the purpose of preserving their offspring upon the earth (Genesis 7:3), it seems clear that a “kind” represents the basic reproductive boundary of an organism. That is, the offspring of an organism is always the same kind as its parents, even though it may display considerable variation. Dogs, for example, exhibit tremendous variety. Yet diverse breeds of dogs can produce offspring with each other - indicating that all dogs are of the same kind. Dogs will not interbreed with cats, however, since they are a different kind. Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. Within their DNA, God placed the potential for tremendous variety, including new species. But every species belongs to its original kind - cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs. [1] So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.” [2]
[1] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
• What’s the difference between species and kind? People are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not. In today’s culture, where evolution and millions of years are taught as fact, many people have been led to believe that animals and plants (that are classed as a specific “species”) have been like this for tens of thousands of years and perhaps millions of years. From a biblical perspective, though, land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time. But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on. God placed variety within the original kinds, and other variation has occurred since the Fall due to genetic alterations. The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some. After the Flood, the animals were told to “"be fruitful and multiply on the earth"” (Genesis 8:17). As they did this, natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur. Speciation was necessary for the animals to survive in a very different post-Flood world. This is especially well illustrated in the dog kind in which current members (e.g., coyotes, dingoes, and domestic dogs) are confirmed to be descended from an ancestral type of wolf. So what is the relationship between the kinds and species anyway? In the early 1700s, if someone said something about a “species” or “genus,” it would have had nothing to do with classification systems. So why is this important today and what can we learn from it? The word species, and its changing definition, were partly responsible for the compromise of the Church in late 1800s. In fact, the Church is still struggling over this change.
Let’s do a brief history review. The English word species comes directly from Latin. Species is also found in the Latin version in Genesis 1:24, 25 as well. The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English (and other languages that have some Latin influence). It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:11, 12, and 21. In both cases, these two words (species and genus) were used for the Hebrew word min or kind. Early commentators recognized that species originally meant the biblical kinds, as even John Calvin, prominent reformer in the 1500s, stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24: I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, (1) that Moses declares animals were created “according to their species”: for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied? Of course, Calvin originally wrote in Latin, but this early English translation by Thomas Tymme in 1578 still shows the point that the word species was used to mean the biblical kind. Calvin is even pointing out stability or fixity (i.e., biblical kinds). Dr. John Gill, about the same time as Linnaeus, equates species and kinds in his note under Genesis 1:22 by saying: With a power to procreate their kind, and continue their species, as it is interpreted in the next clause; saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas. The point is that species originally meant the biblical kind.
Source: What Are Kinds in Genesis? AIG, Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
Editors note. We can clear up the confusion in our conversation by referring to “change in Biblical kinds” rather than species. And then go on to define what we mean by “a Biblical kind.”
All Things After Their Kind (2:24)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdAA-tm53Vo
AIG, Buddy Davis - Creation Musical Adventures
Variation Is Limited within Kinds (1:48)
http://www.icr.org/variation
ICR
• Has a changed in “kinds” been observed? Short answer. No. And don’t let those who say there has “sneak” in a definition (or example) of “species” on you.
Evolutionists Professors (5:19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dACY-bLd7Ck
Living Waters (Ray Comfort) Interviews. Speciation, Adaptation, not change in Kinds
For a full copy of the interview order a copy of the DVD below.
Wretched - Todd Friel
Evolution vs. God (DVD)
http://www.christianbook.com/evolution-god-shaking-the-foundations-faith/9781878859112/pd/859113
CBD Stock No: WW859113, Christian Book Distributors (CBD)
140 Summit St., Peabody, MA 01960, 800-247-4784
Created Kinds & Essential Natures
(A Biblical & Philosophical Response to Evolutionists)
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/created-kinds-and-essential-natures-bible-and-philosophy
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/kinds_natures_evolutionists.pdf
• What is Taxonomy? Taxonomy is a branch of biological science involved with classifying organisms based on characteristics they share in common. Because taxonomists also identify and name organisms, it could be argued that Adam was the first to perform this aspect of taxonomy. The Linnean Taxonomic Hierarchy, which is still used today, was developed in the 18th century by Carolus Linnaeus. As Carolus Linnaeus's work Systema Naturae was published over 100 years before Charles Darwin published his theory, his writings do not mention or makes any references to evolution. Linnaeus was a deeply religious man, believing his work “would reveal the Divine order of God's creation”. Many new taxonomic groups have been added since Linnaeus first developed the modern system, and today evolutionary relationships dominate taxonomy.
Hierarchy. The taxonomic system is hierarchical. All of the organisms in a particular group (i.e. Kingdom) possess certain characteristics that unite them together and distinguish them from other groups. Each group can likewise contain several subgroups, which in turn are often divided into even smaller groups.
The Taxonomic Hierarchy. Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Note: Many creation scientists would equate the “biblical kind” with family (with some exceptions) Source: http://creationwiki.org/Taxonomy
A Biblically Based Taxonomy? (AIG)
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/a-biblically-based-taxonomy
• What is Baraminology? A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). [1] This is done based on many criteria, such as physical characteristics and DNA sequences. For living organisms, hybridization is a key criterion. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind. However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall). [1] Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). [2]
[1] Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
Paper - A Refined Baramin Concept
Let’s do a brief history review. The English word species comes directly from Latin. Species is also found in the Latin version in Genesis 1:24, 25 as well. The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English (and other languages that have some Latin influence). It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:11, 12, and 21. In both cases, these two words (species and genus) were used for the Hebrew word min or kind. Early commentators recognized that species originally meant the biblical kinds, as even John Calvin, prominent reformer in the 1500s, stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24: I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, (1) that Moses declares animals were created “according to their species”: for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied? Of course, Calvin originally wrote in Latin, but this early English translation by Thomas Tymme in 1578 still shows the point that the word species was used to mean the biblical kind. Calvin is even pointing out stability or fixity (i.e., biblical kinds). Dr. John Gill, about the same time as Linnaeus, equates species and kinds in his note under Genesis 1:22 by saying: With a power to procreate their kind, and continue their species, as it is interpreted in the next clause; saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas. The point is that species originally meant the biblical kind.
Source: What Are Kinds in Genesis? AIG, Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
Editors note. We can clear up the confusion in our conversation by referring to “change in Biblical kinds” rather than species. And then go on to define what we mean by “a Biblical kind.”
All Things After Their Kind (2:24)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdAA-tm53Vo
AIG, Buddy Davis - Creation Musical Adventures
Variation Is Limited within Kinds (1:48)
http://www.icr.org/variation
ICR
• Has a changed in “kinds” been observed? Short answer. No. And don’t let those who say there has “sneak” in a definition (or example) of “species” on you.
Evolutionists Professors (5:19)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dACY-bLd7Ck
Living Waters (Ray Comfort) Interviews. Speciation, Adaptation, not change in Kinds
For a full copy of the interview order a copy of the DVD below.
Wretched - Todd Friel
Evolution vs. God (DVD)
http://www.christianbook.com/evolution-god-shaking-the-foundations-faith/9781878859112/pd/859113
CBD Stock No: WW859113, Christian Book Distributors (CBD)
140 Summit St., Peabody, MA 01960, 800-247-4784
Created Kinds & Essential Natures
(A Biblical & Philosophical Response to Evolutionists)
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/created-kinds-and-essential-natures-bible-and-philosophy
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/kinds_natures_evolutionists.pdf
• What is Taxonomy? Taxonomy is a branch of biological science involved with classifying organisms based on characteristics they share in common. Because taxonomists also identify and name organisms, it could be argued that Adam was the first to perform this aspect of taxonomy. The Linnean Taxonomic Hierarchy, which is still used today, was developed in the 18th century by Carolus Linnaeus. As Carolus Linnaeus's work Systema Naturae was published over 100 years before Charles Darwin published his theory, his writings do not mention or makes any references to evolution. Linnaeus was a deeply religious man, believing his work “would reveal the Divine order of God's creation”. Many new taxonomic groups have been added since Linnaeus first developed the modern system, and today evolutionary relationships dominate taxonomy.
Hierarchy. The taxonomic system is hierarchical. All of the organisms in a particular group (i.e. Kingdom) possess certain characteristics that unite them together and distinguish them from other groups. Each group can likewise contain several subgroups, which in turn are often divided into even smaller groups.
The Taxonomic Hierarchy. Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Note: Many creation scientists would equate the “biblical kind” with family (with some exceptions) Source: http://creationwiki.org/Taxonomy
A Biblically Based Taxonomy? (AIG)
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/a-biblically-based-taxonomy
• What is Baraminology? A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). [1] This is done based on many criteria, such as physical characteristics and DNA sequences. For living organisms, hybridization is a key criterion. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind. However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall). [1] Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). [2]
[1] Source: https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds
[2] https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis
Paper - A Refined Baramin Concept
(2003 Baraminology Study Group)
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=YErB7ZuitilFliTOkUo6AbzoLiq3UbJl%2fSj%2fA99NBg4%3d
(Todd Charles Wood, Kurt P. Wise, Roger Sanders, N. Doran)
• What is Homology? Homology is a shared design concept that is generally assumed by evolutionists to be the result of a shared ancestry and therefore providing support for the Darwinian theory of common descent. Evolutionists assert that if multiple organisms evolved from the same ancestor, they would possess structural similarities. In The Origin of Species, Darwin referred to the similar bones in the same relative positions in the hand of a man and several other mammals as specifically what the theory of common descent would expect. The concept of homology (as proof of Darwinism) is commonly taught as a matter of fact in public schools. Prentice Hall Biology, which may be the most widely used Biology textbook in U.S. public schools, describes homology as follows. “By Darwin's time, researchers had noticed striking anatomical similarities among the body parts of animals with backbones. For example, the limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals - arms, wings, legs, and flippers - vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basic bones. Structures that have different mature forms but develop from the same embryonic tissues are called homologous structures. Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all four-limbed vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors.” In contrast, creationists view most “homologous” structures as a reflection that they were designed by the same creator. It is held that a brilliant and well functioning design would be applied to multiple organisms, much in the same way as human designers apply concepts. (Source: http://creationwiki.org/Homology)
Neo-Darwinism's Homology Problem (4:06)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRAU9eeX9Dg
Icons of Evolution - Curriculum Modules
Homology (6:44)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2Twtu0UI
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=YErB7ZuitilFliTOkUo6AbzoLiq3UbJl%2fSj%2fA99NBg4%3d
(Todd Charles Wood, Kurt P. Wise, Roger Sanders, N. Doran)
• What is Homology? Homology is a shared design concept that is generally assumed by evolutionists to be the result of a shared ancestry and therefore providing support for the Darwinian theory of common descent. Evolutionists assert that if multiple organisms evolved from the same ancestor, they would possess structural similarities. In The Origin of Species, Darwin referred to the similar bones in the same relative positions in the hand of a man and several other mammals as specifically what the theory of common descent would expect. The concept of homology (as proof of Darwinism) is commonly taught as a matter of fact in public schools. Prentice Hall Biology, which may be the most widely used Biology textbook in U.S. public schools, describes homology as follows. “By Darwin's time, researchers had noticed striking anatomical similarities among the body parts of animals with backbones. For example, the limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals - arms, wings, legs, and flippers - vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basic bones. Structures that have different mature forms but develop from the same embryonic tissues are called homologous structures. Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all four-limbed vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors.” In contrast, creationists view most “homologous” structures as a reflection that they were designed by the same creator. It is held that a brilliant and well functioning design would be applied to multiple organisms, much in the same way as human designers apply concepts. (Source: http://creationwiki.org/Homology)
Neo-Darwinism's Homology Problem (4:06)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRAU9eeX9Dg
Icons of Evolution - Curriculum Modules
Homology (6:44)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ue2Twtu0UI
(Common Creator or Common Ancestor?)
Comparative Similarities - Homology
https://answersingenesis.org/biology/comparative-similarities-homology
AIG, Dr. Gary Parker
Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism? (No.)
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism
AIG, Dr. Jerry Bergman
• Do similarities prove Common Design or Common Ancestry? (That depends on who you talk to and their worldview- Creationist vs. Evolutionist). Similarities in design do not mean descent from one common ancestor but demonstrate one Common Designer. In the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, in the opening sentence of that book where we read, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation and Intelligent Design holds that all living things come from one common source, and are created by one Designer who set out an ultimate design for the universe…and all that is in it. (Gen. 1:1) Evolution holds that all organisms have descended from one common ancestor. [1]
“I’m related to George Washington,” an acquaintance announced after searching his genealogical record. He also believes he is closely related to chimpanzees. Though he doesn’t really look like either, all three do share a lot of similar features. Similar looks and features can be very deceiving. A true relationship is actually a fact-based connection. A line of connected birth certificates is factual evidence that can be verified. Just comparing similar features - or even DNA - to determine related ancestry is always an inference with a probability of being right ranging from high to zero. However, evolutionists have effectively sold the idea that when people see similarities, they actually “see” remnants of common ancestry. So persuading an evolutionist, who feels deep down inside that all life is somehow connected, to replace his inference-based account of similarities with a design-based explanation is challenging.
Similar Features Mean Common Ancestry, (Except When They Don’t). “Inconsistent” is the best word to stress in conversations to describe how evolutionists compare similar features among organisms. This is because similar features are just that - similar - and the myriad of combinations that organisms possess does not necessarily fit branching evolutionary trees. Scientific-sounding lingo is substituted for data to explain why organisms with essentially no common ancestry have extraordinarily similar features, like the camera-like eye shared by squids and humans. At the same time, other facts are selectively de-emphasized about organisms that are presumed to be very closely related and yet do not share some surprisingly important features, such as humans having a muscle that moves the thumb’s tip that chimpanzees don’t have. The point? Explanations for the presence or absence of similar features are totally arbitrary. [2]
[1] http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/common-designer-not-ancestor.html
[2] http://www.icr.org/article/similar-features-show-design-not-descent
Similar, yet different. In the Creation vs. Evolution discussion those holding to the Evolution model want to focus on the similarities as proof of their point of view. Maybe we should spend equal time pointing out the differences - the differences that would disqualify Evolution as a valid model for origins.