Species Confusion and the Created Kinds
Scientists who are involved in biology disagree on the definition of species. Sometimes this happens with individual critters, but the broader use of the term is also disputed. It is the lowest ranking in taxonomy below genus, most often defined as organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring. Doesn't always work that way, however.
We hear about hybrids, often in the plant kingdom. Animal hybrids usually cannot reproduce, and one of the most famous examples is the mule, from a male donkey and female horse. There are other hybrid animals as well. Darwin's imaginary "Tree of Life" gets its branches all tangled up with species interbreeding, and sometimes, the hybrids can breed with the parents, creating havoc for scientists at the genus level. It may be slightly less surprising when the matings happen in captivity, but they happen in the wild as well.
Materialists like to reject any consideration of the biblical kinds, preferring species (a system that was, ironically, invented by a creationist). No, they prefer to use "their" classification system. I'll allow that the created kinds in Genesis are not sharply defined, but the Bible is not a science textbook, it's a book of history (among other things, of course). When it speaks of science, it is correct. When Scripture does talk about science, it's correct, old son. The kind is broader than the species. Creation science has better options and fits what is observed far better than Darwin's failed Tree of Life. When animals jump species back to genus, that's no problem for the classification of biblical kind. In fact, creationists expect such things.
 |
| Liger at the Novosibirsk Zoo / Wikimedia Commons / Алексей Шилин |
Materialists like to reject any consideration of the biblical kinds, preferring species (a system that was, ironically, invented by a creationist). No, they prefer to use "their" classification system. I'll allow that the created kinds in Genesis are not sharply defined, but the Bible is not a science textbook, it's a book of history (among other things, of course). When it speaks of science, it is correct. When Scripture does talk about science, it's correct, old son. The kind is broader than the species. Creation science has better options and fits what is observed far better than Darwin's failed Tree of Life. When animals jump species back to genus, that's no problem for the classification of biblical kind. In fact, creationists expect such things.
What do you get . . . when you cross a zebra with a horse? Give up? Why, a zorse, of course! How about crossing a polar bear and a grizzly? If you said “pizzly,” you’re catching on! Do you think I’m joking about these names? Guess again.To read the rest or download the free audio, click on "The Great Species Mixup". You may also like to see a creationary view of speciation by clicking on "Evolution, Creation Science, and Speciation". Finally, two half-hour videos: "Speciation- yes, Evolution- no" and "Speciation and the biblical kinds – What’s the connection?"
These are real examples of separate species that can breed and produce unique hybrid babies. Biologists have known about them for a long time, but until recently they thought hybrids were oddities. They usually observed these mixes in captivity, not in the wild—strange hybrids like the ones above, or wholphins (mix of a bottlenose dolphin and a false killer whale) and geeps (mix of a goat and a sheep). New, inexpensive techniques of DNA analysis have now enabled scientists to test a variety of wild creatures, and they have discovered that hybridization seems to occur all the time in the wild.