Tweet
In an effort to explain to biblioskeptics how all the animals fit on the Ark, liberal creationists such as Ray Comfort claim Noah didn’t have to take aboard two or seven of every single species; he only had to take representatives of each “kind,” and “microevolution” gave us all the species we have today. Creationist organisations seem to be constantly revising down the estimated number of kinds necessary to repopulate the planet, giving more and more ground to evolution.
For example, Dr Jonathan D Safarti of Creation Ministries International claimed in a 2012 article that the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the evolutionist "genus." He believes the Ark only had to accommodate 8,000 genera, a total of 16,000 animals.
February of this year, in his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, argued Noah probably took only 7,000 animal kinds aboard the Ark. A month later, AiG published the following:
First off, what research? What evidence? No sources, no links. AiG expects us to take this on faith.
Nye calculated that if there were 7,000 kinds of animals on the Ark, on average, 11 new species would have to have come into existence every day for the Earth to contain all presently known species. If there were only 1,000 kinds on the Ark, 77 new species would have to have come into existence every day. This is what Ken Ham calls "microevolution." I call it macrohyperevolution on steroids. According to Hamian evolution, the giraffe (left) and the okapi (right) could have come from a common ancestor.
Furthermore, if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the evolutionary "family," then I suppose humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orang utans all could have evolved from one pair of great apes aboard the Ark. It's a slippery slope once you concede so much evolution is possible.
But how does the Bible define "kind?" The Hebrew word is מִין, min. It is found in Leviticus 11.
13 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,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 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.
[. . .]
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
Hawks, eagles and kites are members of the same taxonomic family, as are locusts and grasshoppers, yet the Bible classes them as separate kinds. Further distinctions are made among different kinds of eagle (the eagle, the gier eagle), hawk (the night hawk, the hawk) and locust (the locust, the bald locust). Weasels and ferrets belong to the same taxonomic genus, yet they are classed as different kinds. "Every raven after his kind" suggests there are different kinds of raven. All ravens belong to the same taxonomic genus (Corvus), so a "kind" of raven must be roughly equivalent to a "species" of raven or crow.
We can derive a pretty accurate definition of "kind" from Leviticus 11. Anyone who tries to say that eagles, hawks and kites all evolved from one pair of birds aboard the Ark is a Bible denier. The fewer kinds there were on the Ark, the more "macro" microevolution becomes. Some of these so-called creation scientists really need to read the Bible.
For example, Dr Jonathan D Safarti of Creation Ministries International claimed in a 2012 article that the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the evolutionist "genus." He believes the Ark only had to accommodate 8,000 genera, a total of 16,000 animals.
February of this year, in his debate with Bill Nye, Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, argued Noah probably took only 7,000 animal kinds aboard the Ark. A month later, AiG published the following:
[What] constitutes a “kind”? Is a kind what we’d today call a genus? A family?
The answer is still being researched, though evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level . . . There may have been fewer than 1,000 Ark kinds. The most-recent research indicates that Noah only needed maybe 2,000-3,000 animals.
The answer is still being researched, though evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level . . . There may have been fewer than 1,000 Ark kinds. The most-recent research indicates that Noah only needed maybe 2,000-3,000 animals.
First off, what research? What evidence? No sources, no links. AiG expects us to take this on faith.
Nye calculated that if there were 7,000 kinds of animals on the Ark, on average, 11 new species would have to have come into existence every day for the Earth to contain all presently known species. If there were only 1,000 kinds on the Ark, 77 new species would have to have come into existence every day. This is what Ken Ham calls "microevolution." I call it macrohyperevolution on steroids. According to Hamian evolution, the giraffe (left) and the okapi (right) could have come from a common ancestor.
Furthermore, if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the evolutionary "family," then I suppose humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orang utans all could have evolved from one pair of great apes aboard the Ark. It's a slippery slope once you concede so much evolution is possible.
But how does the Bible define "kind?" The Hebrew word is מִין, min. It is found in Leviticus 11.
13 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,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 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.
[. . .]
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
Hawks, eagles and kites are members of the same taxonomic family, as are locusts and grasshoppers, yet the Bible classes them as separate kinds. Further distinctions are made among different kinds of eagle (the eagle, the gier eagle), hawk (the night hawk, the hawk) and locust (the locust, the bald locust). Weasels and ferrets belong to the same taxonomic genus, yet they are classed as different kinds. "Every raven after his kind" suggests there are different kinds of raven. All ravens belong to the same taxonomic genus (Corvus), so a "kind" of raven must be roughly equivalent to a "species" of raven or crow.
We can derive a pretty accurate definition of "kind" from Leviticus 11. Anyone who tries to say that eagles, hawks and kites all evolved from one pair of birds aboard the Ark is a Bible denier. The fewer kinds there were on the Ark, the more "macro" microevolution becomes. Some of these so-called creation scientists really need to read the Bible.
.
Comment