On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 0:58:23 -0500 (CDT), NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote:
[...]
NM>On the discussion of biblical kinds, Steve Jones said:
SJ>"See above. They reproduced "NOT after their" *species*. Only if
>"kind" = species is Glenn's point valid. If kind = order, then they
>have "reproduced...after their kind"!"
NM>Questions for Steve, or any other interested parties:
>1) Glenn's point is NOT valid because "kind" could actually equal
>order", correct?
First I want to make it quite clear at the outset, that I personally
do not necessarily hold that the "kinds" of Genesis 1 represent *any*
modern scientific taxonomic classification. I was just pointing out
that the Genesis kinds do not need to equal species. Old Testament
scholar Edward J. Young says of the Hebrew word for "kinds":
"The word min in verse eleven, whatever its etymology, is a general
term and is not the equivalent of our "species", as this word is
technically employed. It does not rule out the production of freaks
or the possibility of hybrids. It means merely that the producer
will beget what is essentially the same as itself. Hence, this term
clearly rules out the possibility of one "kind" reproducing anything
that is essentially different from itself." (Young E.J., "Studies in
Genesis One", Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia
PA, 1964, p92)
GM>2) Therefore, the descent of one species from another could occur
>by natural processes without violating the God's word that plants
>and animals must reproduce after their kind. If kind=order, then
>supernatural action would account for the origin of new
>orders/kinds, and natural action (whether or not ultimately
>controlled by God) would account for the origin of family, genus,
>and species. Correct?
That is presumably the argument of those (eg. Carnell) who maintain
that "kind=order".
NM>3) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) belong to the Family Pongidae,
>and humans (Homo sapiens) belong to the Family Hominidae. Both
>Pondigae and Hominidae belong to the Order Primates. Correct?
Correct. In modern taxonomic classifications, based on physical
charcteristics, man is in the order primates.
NM>4)Therefore, humans and chimps (as well as monkeys, gorillas,
>orangutans, lemurs, and bush babies) belong to the same kind and
>humans could have naturally developed from the same ancestors as
>chimps without requiring supernatural intervention (as long as
>kind=order). Correct?
No. Strictly speaking, man is not even included in the "kinds" of
Genesis 1. But those who suggest that "kind=order" do so tentatively,
and make an exception in the case of man. For example, Carnell says:
"It is conceivable, then, that the 'orders' of the paleontologist
correspond to the `kinds' of Genesis." (Carnell E.J., "An
Introduction to Christian Apologetics", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,
1948, pp239-240)
but he adds a footnote:
"Whether the 'kinds' of Genesis correspond exactly to the orders of
science, only further exhaustive research can tell us. The Bible
simply sets forth natural divisions; it is the job of the scientist
to locate them" (p40).
And elsewhere he says:
"Let us also observe that the Bible teaches that what distinguishes
man from the lower 'kinds' is not the structure of this organism,
but, rather, his having been made in the image and likeness of the
Almighty. Yet science tries to base its case for human evolution
upon the structural similarity between man and the other Primates or
Vertebrata, when, as a matter of fact, this need not be the key to
unlocking the mystery of man's origin. The Christian teaches that
though Pithecanthropus may have had a frame which evolved
considerably within the appointed limits of 'threshold' evolution,
even to the point where he resembled the other Primates more than
does modern man, that structural deviation does not relieve
Pithecanthropus of his membership in the classification Homo sapiens.
Even science admits that all of the fossil men that it has discovered
are still men, despite their structural peculiarities. Since the
individuating principle in man is not his bone-structure, but rather
his rational nature and his qualifications to worship God, the fact
that the bodies of the primitive men have evolved in this way or
that, is neither here nor there." (Carnell E.J., "An Introduction to
Christian Apologetics", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1948, p240)
NM>I have thought through this a couple of times, and the logic looks
>pretty solid to me. It looks like a catch-22 for Steve and others
>with similar views:
It is "solid...logic", but it doesn't represent my "views". I don't
claim that the "kinds" of Genesis 1 represent any particular
taxonomic classification, and in the case of man, he is not called a
"kind" in Genesis 1. Also, AFAIK, those who do suggest that the
"kinds" of Genesis 1 most nearly approximate the "orders" of modern
scientfic taxonomic classification, make an exception in the case of
man. Clearly man is a special case. Physically, he is obviously a
closest to the apes. Even, Linnaeus, who thought that even species
were specially created by God, placed man in the order primates:
"...the creationist Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, unhesitatingly
included humans among the primates." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, pp93-94)
But the things that most distinguish man from his nearest taxonomic
neighbours (ie. the apes) are non-physical. Mentally and
spiritually, man is a totally new order of being.
NM>Either:
>1) you have to accept that it is possible that humans and chimps evolved from
>the same ancestors by a natural process allowed within the catagory of biblical
>kinds, OR
See above. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that God may
have progressively created man from primate common ancestors.
NM>2) you have to say that, in fact, kind does NOT equal order and
>must equal a lower grouping such as family, genus, or species, in
>which case there is hard, verifiable, documented evidence that in
>today's world, organisms do NOT always reproduce according to their
>kinds.
Even this is not a problem. Genesis is not a science text. It
speaks only of the language of appearances. It is a fact that
ordinarily organisms do reproduce according to their kinds. If it
were not so, agriculture would be impossible. To claim that the
Bible is wrong because occasionally a new species appears is to press
Biblical language beyond its intended meaning. One might as well
claim that if the Bible says: "Train a child in the way he should
go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Pr 22:6), then if
even one well-trained child goes off the rails in later life, then
the Bible is wrong!
NM>This means that the Bible is, in this case, incorrect (or more
>accurately, the common (and apparently textually correct)
>interpretation of the meaning of this part of the creation story is
>incorrect).
No. See above.
NM>Take your pick. If you don't like either one, here's option three
>(my favorite):
>
>3) you have to admit (as has been asserted on this server) that the
>phrase that plants and animals reproduced after their kinds reflects
>nothing more than an observational report of Middle Eastern nomads
>3-4,000 years ago, who saw little change in the offspring of animals
>and plants within their period of observation, which was probably
>about the same as their 35 year (or less) average lifespan.
No. While Genesis 1 uses the language of appearances, it is also
uniquely the word of God. There is an important theological principle
here that God has created boundaries in the living world, just as he
has in the non-living world.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------