> Let me ask a question of those who believe that the Bible
> teaches that animals must reproduce after their kind.
>
> When God inspired Genesis, was He unaware that animals like the
> bison and cow were able to produce a cross? Was He unaware
> that plants could engage in polyploidy with other genera and
> produce new kinds of plants?
I would like to develop a response to this question using the
"language of appearance" interpretative approach.
Our experience of reproduction across the whole range of fauna
and flora is that offspring are very much like their parents.
That is the "appearance". That is the common experience of
farmers throughout human history. As long as we stick with this
non-technical understanding of the phrase "after their kind", I
do not think we have controversy.
The differences start when technical meaning is brought into the
phrase. This is well illustrated in Glenn's post to Steve Jones
of 12 July. In it, Glenn pointed out that crosses between
species do occur:
"Look at vv12 "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed
according to their kinds."
This means that the teosinte seed does produce teosinte seeds and
not apple seeds. But once again, this does not say that teosinte
can not produce corn-- which is an entirely different species.
Nor does it say that Oenothera lamarckiana,a species with 14
chromosomes can not produce O. gigas with 28 chromosomes. This
new kind is unable to breed with the original. Here we actually
have an example of a plant reproducing a plant NOT AFTER ITS
KIND. Thus if you persist in saying that the Bible teaches that
plants can only reproduce after their kind, you force the Bible
to be wrong."
Glenn Morton further wrote to Steve Jones on 12th July with a
quotation from Joseph Boxhorn:
"The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1928) crossed the radish,
Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite
the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a
sterile hybrid."
GM: "By golly, these plants reproduced plants NOT after their
kind. So are you going to agree that the Bible is wrong? Or
will you grant that the Bible does not mean what you want it to
mean?"
So, here is observational evidence that crosses between species
and crosses between genera are possible. What does this mean for
our understanding of the phrase "after its kind"? Is Glenn right
to say that these are examples of plants reproducing NOT after
their kind?
I am going to suggest two lines of thought:
(a) that the Bible is not "wrong" because of evidences of intra-
specific and intra-generic crosses. There are two reasons for
this.
(i) The word "kind" (non-technical) should not be equated with
"species" (technical);
(ii) Reproduction after its kind IS our experience of living
things, and in an a-scientific worldview (which I maintain
characterises the Bible) attention to such complexities should
not be expected.
(b) that a variety of interpretations of the phrase "after their
kind" are, in principle, possible. Thus, TEs can, in principle,
argue that although the general experience of humanity is that
things reproduce so that the offspring are like their parents,
there is no fundamental reason why the phenotype should not vary
with time. PCs and YECs can argue that, since miraculous
creative power is necessary to bring organisms into existence,
there will be fundamental "blocks" to variation - the gulfs which
separate the different created designs cannot be bridged. (Note:
although I have said that a variety of interpretations are
possible, I think the range of possibilities can be narrowed by
identifying other inputs to assist problem resolution.)
There are biblical considerations (to what extent is Genesis 1-11
history? To what extend to we draw an analogy between Christ the
miracle-worker and Christ the Creator? etc). There are also
scientific considerations (is there evidence for continuity, or
discontinuity?).
I want to draw attention to the research of some German
creationists, who have taken the scientific questions about
whether there is a "gulf" between created designs very seriously.
They are seeking to define "Basic Types" which are related
genetically but which are quite unrelated genetically to other
Basic Types. They have used hybridisation data (similar to that
cited by Glenn) to construct interbreeding matrices. Other
evidences are employed as appropriate. The results are very
interesting. Basic Types are NOT at the species level, not even
at the genus level. They are at the Family or sub-Family level.
Thus, groups we naturally associate together (such as the Dog
Family or the Horse Family) are meaningful biological groups.
This research has been published in book format (mostly in the
German language): _Typen des Lebens_, Scherer, S. (Ed.), 1993,
Pascal-Verlag, Berlin.
So, Glen wrote to Paul Durham on 13th July:
"Interspecific hybridization among the higher plants and animals
can spawn variation that transcends that of either parent
species. Some species seem to make a habit of hybridizing with
others. From morphological evidence, Harlan and de Wet concluded
that the grass Bothriochloa intermedia has incorporated genes
from B. ischaemum in Pakistan, from Dichanthium annulatum in
Pakistan and India, from Capillipedium parviflorum in norther
Australia, and from B. insculpta in East Africa." Douglass
Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology p. 258
GM: "These are crosses of different genera. Deal with this. How
does this fit your biblical interpretation?"
The response is that "species" and "genera" are classifications
which subjectively distinguish biological groups. Whether there
are significant "gaps" between them is a matter for scientific
research. However, as a generalisation, hybridisation data
serves to show that the organisms are all genetically related,
have common developmental pathways, and can be regarded as
belonging to the same Basic Type. PCs and YECs regard these
Basic Types as having been brought into existence (at least in
its important aspects) by the miraculous power of God.
What TEs (and evolutionary-minded scientists) make of Basic Types
is another matter. Structuralists recognise that there is
something meaningful here - which needs ex[planation. But
traditional neoDarwinians appear to be mystified by the concept.
A last comment - based on Dennis L's post to Glenn today:
"But more importantly, was THE WRITER of Genesis 1 aware? That
is, when the Holy Spirit inspired the writer did He permit the
him to write within his intellectual context (i.e., the ancient
agrarian notion of reproduction after one's kind)?"
The "language of appearance" principle that I have used has no
technical overtones. There is a widely-held presumption that the
"intellectual context" of the ancient world was erroneous - a
sentiment with which I agree. But Biblical revelation came
through human agents from God - and this, in my view, means that
we should expect the writers to be preserved from adopting the
errors of their day. By using ascientific terminology, no false
views of the natural world are incorporated into Scripture. The
language of appearance is a simple, yet effective, means which
God used to achieve this end.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***