ter their “ divisions.” The ques tion rises as to how these “divi sions” so created relate in classi fication to the taxonomic terms of biology: species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum. Some times identification is made with the term “ species,” saying that God made each species a unique, original form o f life. In support, it is asserted that species cannot be crossed except to produce ster ile offspring. This is true in large part, but there are exceptions. Biologists claim to have crossed also in the genus category, though in fewer cases. This means that “kind” is not to be identified with any of these terms. These terms, while indicating classifications based on real, physical, character istic distinctions, are modem and hardly to be compared with the more general term, “kind,” of Genesis. The meaning in Genesis is that whatever the type and na ture of characteristic which dis tinguished these “kinds” as con ceived and brought to being by God, each was created a unique, original form of life. It was not the product of evolvement from other forms nor from parentage common with other forms, and could not be crossed with any so as to endanger its identity. Within the “kinds” variations have developed since their crea tion. God did not create the many varieties of cattle , dogs and horses. He created the first pair o f each kind and then permitted the varieties to develop by the process of genetic mutation. This means that there has been devel opment within “kinds” but not of or among “kinds.” c. Still further, the formation of these “kinds” is described by the phrase, “whose seed is in it self” Cosher zar o'bho), used twice in connection with plant life (Gen. 1:11, 12), the only group of life forms to which it is applicable. The phrase indicates not only that each “kind” was capable of self-propagation, hav ing its seed self-contained, but im plies that each was distinct from others in having its own particu-
there will be reason to notice this variation in particular and show that, though more in keeping with Scriptures, it is still in serious disagreement. SEVEN AREAS OF CONFLICT We come now to the seven areas o f conflict between theistic evolution and the Bible. 1. Plants and Animals Theistic evolution holds that plants and animals have evolved from a single-celled organism. It is believed that life somehow came into existence (perhaps by direct creation of God) in such an or ganism and that from it the plant and animal worlds have devel oped. Genesis, however, conflicts with this presentation in three respects. a. Plant life is described as hav ing been formed on one day (the third of the six creative days, 1:11, 12), marine and bird life on another (the fifth, 1:20, 21), and animals on still another (the sixth, 1:24, 25). The language employed ind ica tes that each group began uniquely from the others. There is no intimation that any group evolved from an other or from parentage common with another. b. Further, the formation of various members w ith in these groups is described as being ef fected after the ir respective “kinds.” The word “kind” (min) is used repeatedly (a total of ten times in Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) in an evident indication of stress. For instance, Genesis 1: 25 reads, “ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind . . .” (italics mine). The thought conveyed is that each of these members was made unique to itself. Each was constituted a unique, orig ina l “ kind” by direct creation. The meaning and significance of the word “kind” calls for some explanation. It is a collective noun meaning “ division.” 1 It reflects the thought that God made the grass, herbs, fruit trees, etc., af
Dr. Wood is Dean and Professor of Old Testament Studies, Grand Rapids Bap tist Seminary. DEFINITION Before noting these, the term theistic evolution should be de fined. Briefly stated, theistic evo lution is the belief that God has directed a continuous process since the beginning of time by which present forms of existence have developed from prior, usual ly simpler, forms. Theistic evolution differs from atheistic evolution primarily in the matter of planning and the source of energy. Atheistic evolu tion denies the existence of plan ning altogether and finds the source of energy inherent in mat ter itself. Because it is atheistic, it has no other energy source pos sible. This means that all which now exists has resulted from blind chance, the product of non- rational force. Theistic evolution, on the other hand, finds both the planning and source of energy in God. Adherents believe that God laid out the blueprint and provid ed for its effectuation through His controlled natural law. In these two respects theistic evolution is admittedly nearer the scriptural position than atheistic evolution. These differences in planning and energy source are important, but when they have been stated there is little more that can be added. Apart from these differences, the process of evolution itself is viewed much the same by theistic and atheistic evolutionists. Adherents o f theis tic evolution hold that what now exists in the world has resulted from a continual spiral of modi fication, only with God superin tending the process. It is true that variations in viewpoint exist among theistic evolutionists. These variations are usually prompted by desire for conformity with the Bible. The most significant variation holds that man’s body evolved from the animal realm, in keeping with the normative viewpoint, but then that God inserted into that body a directly created soul. Later
SEPTEMBER, 1961
24
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter