Evolution of Organisms After Their Own Kind

Part of Mc Conkie's 4th objection is his rejection of the notion that one species could turn into another since living things were supposed to bring forth offspring after their own kind.

"After this temporal creation, this creation of all forms of life in a state of immortality, the Lord God issued the decree that all created life should remain in the sphere in which it was after it was created. Further, having in mind the coming fall and consequent entrance of death and mortality into the world, the Lord in that first primeval day commanded that all forms of life, after mortality entered the picture, should bring forth posterity, each after its own kind. These principles accord with the one announced by Paul that "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

In other words, his objection again derives from a belief in essentialism. Men are men because they have man-ness about them. Fish have fish-ness and beasts, beast-ness. Species, according to this line of reasoning, is not merely a label that we somewhat arbitrarily place on organisms according to the differences we see in them. Instead, God creating separate species is in fact the law which causes the differences we see in them. This, however, is getting the cart before the horse.

First of all, we should note that the word kind, as used in Genesis as well as the famous passage by President Taylor, is not used in the same way as biologists in their "Kings Play Cards On Fat Green Stools" classification system. The text is merely stating the obvious fact that chicken do not give birth to turtles, nor monkeys to humans. The author is giving a reason for this otherwise, at the time, inexplicable tendency in nature. Evolutionists have never claimed that these things did happen.

As to Mc Conkie's use of Paul's statement, we have another case of getting the cart before the horse. Paul is using the differences we all observe in different organisms as an illustration of the differences between physical and spiritual beings. He is not saying that since there is a difference between physical and spiritual beings, there is necessarily a difference between assorted species. He didn't, after all, say there is a difference between the flesh of Gorillas and that of Chimpanzees, the flesh of piranas and that of gold fish. He is using broad groups (beasts and fish) which have obvious differences between the two so as to ensure that there will be no argument. He is not arguing anything at all about individual species, let alone that there are essential differences from species to species.

What we have here is a case which we warned about in the beginning. It is the same problem found in the books sold in Born-again Christian book stores which intend to show how physics proves that the Bible is true. They use vague proof-texts which mention the heavens expanding and say that these actually refer to the general relativity and the big bang. Mormons do the same thing with the Book of Abraham. And this is what happens when people accept their scriptures as being too perfect. The scriptures are not text books for science, neither advanced physics nor evolutionary biology.

I mentioned that evolutionists do not claim that monkey's give birth to humans. This statement should be unpacked a bit since creationists never tire of claiming the evolutionists do say this.

Speciation is a very noneventful occasion. There is simply no way to say when it is happening, only when it did happen in the past. It's like a person coming home to his wife and excitedly announcing "Guess what I did today! I helped give birth to Victor Hugo!" As Dennett asks, "What is wrong with this story?" It is completely anachronistic. At the time of Victor Hugo's birth there would have been no reason whatsoever to be excited about giving birth to him, for he had not yet made a name for himself. Victor Hugo's birth was no more significant than that of anybody else's and anything else's.

Speciation has no clear boundaries. It is never absolutely clear when, exactly, it happened. We can only say when it has happened. Thus, Mc Conkie objection does not hold water.

Summary: The Bible says that living things reproduce "after their own kind" but this does not pose a problem for our believing in both the Bible and evolution. Those who do see a problem do so because of their attributing too much information to various Biblical statements and a misunderstanding of speciation events.