During the early decades of the controversy between evolution and Creation, the concept that the Bible taught absolute fixity of species profoundly influenced the thinking of both theologians and scientists. Today, few scientists give much thought to Scripture and few theologians feel that the early chapters of Genesis are more than an ancient myth. To Adventists the message of Creation, which is not only basic to the Sabbath but also to the central theme of Scripture and the plan of salvation, cannot be dismissed so easily. This truth clearly represents to man his relationship to God, to the universe, and to his fellow man.
The tradition of long standing that the Scriptures teach absolute fixity of species is based on the assumption that the different kinds of species of plants or animals were fixed by the act of creation. According to this view any variation from the original kinds is clearly excluded by the divine decree that each animal shall bring forth "after his kind." "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself. upon the earth: and it was so." "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:11, 25).
It was commonly echoed from the pulpit that if new species arise, then evolution has been proved to be true. If evolution is true, then the Genesis story, the Scriptures, are false. Therefore, no species have changed since the Creation; no new species have come into being. Thus the traditional interpretation of "after his kind" was set up as a standard by which the verity, the divine origin, of Scripture was tested. The volume of literature which reflects these attitudes is enormous. A single quotation from a letter Darwin sent to his friend Hooker in 1844 will suffice to illustrate the deep feeling on this issue: "I have read heaps of agricultural and horticultural books and have never ceased collecting facts. At last gleams of light have come, and I am almost convinced (quite contrary to the opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable." — Quoted in ERIK NORDENSKIORD, The History of Biology, pp. 463, 464. Most scientists who still bother to define "special creation" assume it teaches that "each species that exists or ever existed was separately created."
A comprehensive definition of mechanistic organic evolution must always contain a series of premises including the following elements: Origin of the present complex mosaic of life by (1) changes in species as a result of (2) natural processes so that all (3) complex present-day species could eventually be traced back through a series of predominantly simpler (4) intermediate links to one or several (5) simple primordial types which arose by chance (spontaneously) from nonliving matter. Although every one of the five premises is necessary for mechanistic evolution, in practice it is often felt that when change of species has been demonstrated, the Bible has been shown to be untrustworthy, hence evolution is the only alternative. Change versus fixity has thus become the pivotal point in the controversy.
That change is thought to be the crucial element and is reflected in many terse definitions of evolution in common use:
"Descent with modification"—Darwin. "That existing organisms are the modified but lineal descendants of other species that lived in former geological times"—Storer.
"In the last analysis evolution is a sequence of changes in genes"—Dobzhansky.
But let it be emphasized that the fabric of the theory requires every one of the other premises. Change alone proves nothing except that variation in species is possible.
What does the Bible teach about change or fixity of species?
The Meaning of "After His Kind"
The surest way to determine accurately the range of meaning of the Hebrew phrase lemino, commonly translated "after his kind," is to study how and in what context it is commonly used by the author (see word study article by Dr. Running in the September issue of this journal). This expression appears thirty times in the books of Moses and once in Ezekiel. In the books of Moses it is used in the Creation record, the Flood account, and the chapters regarding clean and unclean animals—wherever a classification of animals or plants is necessary. Is the expression "after his kind" used in Genesis as a divine decree that organisms produce offspring that are of the same kind as the parents—or in reference to classification only? Let us examine the texts where the phrase occurs to see if any light may be shed on this point.
In the references regarding the classification of clean and unclean animals the phrase is used thirteen times in essentially the same context in each instance (Lev. 11:14-22; Deut. 14:13-18). We quote several typical texts:
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, . . . and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. . . . Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind" (Lev. 11:1322).
In this context "after his kind" seems obviously to refer only to classification denoting "various species" of each of those groups for which only a single example or the general name is given. "You must detest the following; . . . the vulture, the eagle, the buzzard, the kite in its several species, the raven in all its species, the ostrich, the night-hawk, the sea-mew, the hawk in its several species." *
At the time of the Flood, when the animals are being gathered into the ark, the phrase is used in much the same context:
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive" (Gen. 6:19, 20).
Here land animals are described under three broad categories, the various species or kinds of birds (flying animals; compare Leviticus 11:13-23 where birds, bats, and flying insects are grouped together as fowl), the various kinds of cattle, and the various kinds of creeping things. That "after his kind" cannot refer to the fowl and their offspring, et cetera, is quite apparent from the explicit statement that "two of every sort," the male and female," shall be taken into the ark. In the next chapter, where their entry into the ark is described, almost the same broad classification is used except that it is slightly more explicit in mentioning "beasts" as well as "cattle," and "birds" as well as "fowl." The meaning is expressed clearly in the American Translation:
"Together with all the various kinds of wild beasts, all the various kinds of domestic animals, all the various kinds of land reptiles, and all the various kinds of birds, everything with feathers and wings; of all creatures in which there was the breath of life, a pair of each joined Noah in the ark" (Gen. 7:14).
The broad categories into which land creatures are divided in the texts just examined are the same as those used in Genesis 1. If we compare the original wording in Genesis 1:25 with 7:14 just quoted, we note that the classification is exactly the same except that the fowls created the previous day are not mentioned.
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:25). It is evident that "after his kind," as in the case in Genesis 7:14, is their way of saying that the various species of the major categories enumerated (cattle, beasts, and creeping things) were all created on the sixth day. Again, concerning the fifth day, in verse 21 the meaning is most reasonable when "after his kind" is understood in the sense in which it is used in chapter 6:20 or 7:14 or where lesser groups are referred to in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. "And so it was. God created the great sea-monster and all the various kinds of living, gliding creatures with which the waters teem, and all the various kinds of winged birds. God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:21).* If either "bring forth" or "after its kind" implies a command for reproduction, then the command in the very next verse, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth," would be somewhat redundant.
It may appear that we are laboring the point, since in each case it is evident that naming the broad category followed by the phrase "after his kind" was their accepted way of referring to the various species of the category or group of animals or plants under consideration. Reproduction is not even implied. But this point is of fundamental importance to the doctrine of Creation and the results of what seems to be a misinterpretation have been of serious consequence to the church of God.
In the remaining texts in Genesis 1 where the idiom "after his kind" is used, it is in reference to the subdivisions or species of the three broad categories of land vegetation: tender grass, herbaceous plants with seeds, and fruit trees with seeds. Here the wording is such that if these were the only texts in which the phrase is used, one might suppose that there is a decree that like shall produce like in the case of land plants.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind; and God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1:11, 12).
Even here, however, with reflection it is apparent that the general usage as a taxonomic term referring to "various species or kinds of," not to reproduction, is the most reasonable rendering of the text. "And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw how good this was" (Gen. 1:11)
The "herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself" seems to refer to types of plants characterized by the fact that they produce seeds or fruit which has seeds, rather than to reproduction. This is still more evident when one notes the similar phraseology used in verse 29, where the subject is the type of plants which may be used for food, not reproduction.
Ezekiel, the only other Bible writer who uses the phrase lernind employs it in much the same way. "And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a plate to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many" (Eze. 47: 10). Rendered "many kinds" or "various kinds" in other translations, the text would seem difficult to read, let alone to understand, with any other meaning.
It may be suggested that the "kind" of Genesis 1 refers neither to species as they existed in the original creation nor to the general groups mentioned (beasts, fowls, etc.) but to an intermediate category—a cluster of related species. There does not, however, seem to be any textual support for such a view.
Changes Did Occur
If, then, there is in Genesis 1 no statement that species are fixed by divine decree at the time of their creation, is there, on the other hand, any evidence that animals or plants are subject to change? There seems to be.
The curse of Genesis 3:14-19 seems to call for change in living things, modifications of a type which we see abundantly demonstrated in nature. For the serpent, loss of limbs and possibly also change in food habits may be implied. The presence, absence, or nature of the limbs is a fundamental character in delineating major groups of animals. The fact that the serpent is cursed "above all cattle, and every beast of the field" might be taken to imply a general curse on animals. When their anatomy and embryology are studied, thorns and thistles, which are probably typical of the sort of modifications to be expected in the plant kingdom, are commonly seen to be modified leaves or stems. Changes of this sort could not take place without producing new species in nature.
Ellen G. White in many references portrays marked changes in the living world, changes which became more pronounced through the centuries (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 58-62; Testimonies, vol. 6, pp. 185, 186). She states that the "confused species which God did not create" were destroyed by the Flood. She goes on to point out that since the Flood change is indicated by the "almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 75).
Life as we see it today probably reflects the original state only dimly. Significant modifications in living things have taken place since sin entered the world. This is clearly shown by the fossil record.
What are the implications of this study? Does it open the door for evolution? Does it weaken the basis for the doctrine of Creation? We have seen that within the framework of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy the origin of new species is allowed, even suggested. On the other hand, it is evident to anyone, upon reflection, that regardless of whether or not modifications in living things are allowed, already at the end of the Creation week there is described a world with a great variety of complex animals and plants, a world under the dominion of man created in the image of God. Change subsequent to this time can only result in altering the complex mosaic of life which has been created by God. And this is not evolution. Most of the mass of supposed evidence for evolution is really only evidence for the type of change to be expected since the Creation.
* Smith and Goodspeed. The Complete Bible: An Ameilcan Translation. Used by permission of University of Chicago Press.
+The Torah. The Five Books of Moses. A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text. 1962. The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia.
