From a Netfriend, Dr Ken Smith:

The point is that repeatedly throughout creationist writings we come across statements that animals “reproduce after their kinds”, ususally with some sort of claim that this is what is written in Genesis 1.

But my claim is that this is simply not true. There is no linking of reproduction in Genesis 1 with “after their kinds”. Reproduction, yes. But most definitely not “reproduction after their kinds”. I’ll dig out a recent bit of writing by the guru of the creationist movement, Henry M. Morris, and post it.

Here it is for all to read. It’s the first five paragraphs of Impact No. 312, entitled “The Bible and/or Biology”. I’ve included the first three paragraphs to give the context of Morris’ errors in the fifth paragraph.

IMPACT No. 312

The Bible and/or Biology

by Henry M. Morris*

Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 Voice: (619) 448-0900 Fax: (619) 448-3469

“Vital Articles on Science/Creation” June 1999 Copyright C 1999 All Rights Reserved.

Biology, a word derived from two Greek words, bios (“life”)

and logos (“word”) is “the study of life.” The Bible is the written word of God, according to its own claims and an abundance of evidence.

The Bible encourages-in fact, commands-the study of biology and all other factual science. The very first divine commandment given to man was: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

This “dominion mandate,” as it has been called, is in effect a command to “do science,” for Adam and his descendants could only “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” over all its living creatures by learning their nature and functions. This clearly implies the establishment of a “science” of biology, so that mankind could properly care for and utilize the world’s resources of animal and plant life as created by God.

There is thus no conflict at all between the Bible and biological science. But “evolutionary biology” is another matter. It is a philosophy, not science, an attempt to explain the origin and developmental history of all forms of life on a strictly naturalistic basis, without the intervention of special creation.

The Bible is opposed to evolutionary biology in that sense. Ten times in its opening chapter it stresses that the various created forms of life were to reproduce only “after their kinds” (see Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). This restriction does not preclude “variation,” of course, since no two individuals of the same kind are ever exactly alike. Such “horizontal” recombinations, within the created kinds, are proper subjects of scientific study and so do not conflict with the Bible.

For many years scientists whio have read creationist literature have suspected the veracity of anything they write about science and checked the citations. The not-too-surprising result is that there is now general disbelief in the accuracy of anything creationists write about science. In my case this disbelief goes back about 20 years.

And in the light of what Morris writes here I now check *anything* creationists quote from the Bible – if they don’t quote scientists correctly, why should anyone assume that they quote the Bible correctly?

Which brings me back, once again, to a passage in Augustine’s big commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis, written early in the 5th century. It’s a while since I posted this to a.r.c and some of the more recent participants may not have seen it before, so here it is. It’s a bit long, but will repay careful study – in particular what he saus about unbelievers not accepting what Christians say about various parts of Christian doctrine, since they have been found to be unreliable witnesses about science.

———–Extract from Augustine starts here———————–

Apparently Augustine, in his day, had trouble with people who tried to make deductions about the way the world works by assuming that _Genesis_ provided information of a scientific nature. He devoted some attention to this issue in his massive commentary _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_ (translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J.; two volumes; Newman Press, New York, 1982)

The long section 39 in chapter 19 of Book 1 was quoted, in part, by Galileo, and is worth reproducing in full (from pages 42 and 43 in volume 1):

39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to, as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although _they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions_.’

———–Extract from Augustine ends here———————–

The last 14 words above are quoted from Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, chapter 1, verse 7.

The important part of all this is:

… how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

It’s difficult enough to get a hearing for the Christian point of view in modern society without the additional barrier of disbelief raised by earnest, but misguided, Christians making silly statements about science.