Anti-Evolution is Anti-Bible

Genesis 1:24-25 (NASB):bible-preacher-elvert-barnes

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

You may ask, “Where is evolution in this passage?”

Right here:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures…

God did not create them directly. He commanded the earth to bring them forth. It was a process.

That’s an important distinction. Everybody knows animals come from animals, not the earth. Note the word for earth is “erets” which can mean soil, or land, or the whole world.

OK, so what is a “kind”?

The Hebrew word “miyn” seems to be used much as we use the word “species” today.

So how do you get a new species? As in a significant change?

If you breed dogs, all you’ll ever get is dogs.

You can separate two populations of dogs. Because of genetic drift, you’ll eventually get dogs that can’t breed together wit the original dogs.

But you still won’t get anything significantly different from a dog.


There are two ways to get a brand new species:

1) Symbiogenesis, which is nature’s version of a merger-acquisition. I symbiogenesis discuss here and here

2) Genome Duplication through Hybridization –  where Species 1 crossed with Species 2 gives you Species 3.


Emmer wheats + goat grass = modern wheat.

This doubles the number of chromosomes. After this merger, “hybrid dysgenesis” kicks in. Extensive genome editing re-arranges and deletes parts of the new DNA.

Whatever “kind” means in Genesis, it surely must allow for Hybridization (at least if the Bible can be trusted to be true) because botanists produce new species through hybrids every day.liger-flickr-james-ball

Hybrids are typically sterile… but not always. When you get a fertile hybrid you can get a brand new species that never existed before.

A liger, for example, is a hybrid of lion and tiger. It has twice the chromosomes of either of its parents.

This fascinating article details many new kinds of plants and animals that have been bred through hybridization:

Genome studies suggest that a hybridization event got us from invertebrates to vertebrates, when two tunicates merged to create a hagfish.

Then a second merger got us from vertebrates to jawed vertebrates.

This is called “Ohno’s 2R hypothesis,” where the “2R” stands for “2 Rounds of doubling” of chromosomes.

We are not able to go back and observe tunicate 1 + tunicate 2 = hagfish, of course. But the genetic data is greatly consistent with such a hypothesis.

We also know from plant and animal breeding that in a small minority of cases, a hybrid merger produces a very successful new species. (Like wheat.) The new species may have significantly different features than its ancestors.

So unless we assume that observable symbiotic and hybrid mergers somehow prove the Bible wrong – and I seriously doubt “kind” was ever meant to exclude such things – then there is no conflict between the Bible and an evolutionary view.

Does not scripture say God commanded the earth to produce animals? And plants?

Also… does not scripture say that the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielded seed, and fruit trees bore fruit with seeds in them? And that all of this took place before the end of “day” 3?

Genesis 1:9-13 (New American Standard Bible):

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.

The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Scriptures say the earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielded seed, and fruit trees bore fruit… all on the third “day.”

We have two choices:

1) The earth brought forth vegetation and trees grew at thousands of times normal speed, or

2) Perhaps a day is not 24 hours.

The word “yom” clearly means something other than 24 hours in Genesis 2:4, where all the “days” are described as one “day.” Yom has even more meanings across the Old Testament.

So I cast my vote with option #2.

Seeing that the earth produced animals – scripture indicates God did not directly make them, but commanded the earth to make them – I see no conflict between Genesis 1 and an evolutionary progression.

Not only that – but to assert that God created animals and plants intact, fully grown, clearly contradicts scripture. Genesis 1 is not describing instantaneous miracles; it’s describing a process.

Post your comments below.

18 Responses

  1. I go for option 1. “Yom” (day) is clearly used in a different sense in 2:4 from its use in chapter 1, where each day is described as evening and morning. Exodus 20:11 declares God’s 6 days of creation followed by a sabbath rest as a pattern for our week.

    If God has created all living things by evolution (which in any case lacks any credible mechanism) he could not have called the resulting mess very good. The world is under a curse, yet this is what evolution is supposed to have produced.

  2. Jon Hazell says:

    John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 (among others) contradict your erroneous assumptions. Which is what happens when you try to isolate one passage from the entire Bible to try to prove your point.
    You give absolutely no evidence for you opinion to “choose” to misinterpret “Yom” as something other than a 24 hour day; specifically ignoring the accompanying “morning/evening” clarification after every single mention of the word.
    Next, in Matthew 19, Jesus Himself specifically states that from the BEGINNING God made them male and female.
    Lastly, if your erroneous assumption of millions or billions of years between development of organisms was true, then how did plants survive without animals since they were created on “day” 3 but animals not until “day” 5, and therefore the necessary CO2/O2 exchange (photosynthesis/cellular respiration) would not have been in place. Not to mention that light (sun, moon etc…) was not created until “day” 4, so how did the plants survive for millions/billions of years without light?
    There are so many unscientific assumptions in your post that it reveals a complete lack of scientific knowledge.

    • Where does Colossians 1:16 or John 1:3 preclude nature’s ability to develop itself? We believe God made babies in the ultimate sense, but the fact that our wives gave birth to them doesn’t take anything away from God.

      “Morning/evening” is an idiom. The Sabbath pattern of rest is reflected through the fact that we are still in the 7th day now – there is no “evening and morning a 7th day.”

      24 hour days is not the point of the Genesis 1 narrative and in fact most of the days describe things that take far longer than a day – like trees bearing fruit. That alone should give you pause. Given a choice between days being longer than 24 hours vs trees growing from nothing to bearing fruit in literally hours or minutes, a common sense reading of the text would prefer the former over the latter.

      Light was visible starting in verse 2. The sun and moon did not become visible as distinct objects in the sky until “day” four, because the atmosphere was opaque.

      If you’re going to take Matthew 19 THAT literally, then the Bible contradicts itself. The male and female were not there at the beginning. That’s the first verse. Adam and Eve do not appear until verse 26.

      Plants can respirate without animals just fine.

      • The whole point of Genesis 1 is to relate the initial creation in 6 24 hour days (evening and morning), which is reinforced by an explicit statement in Exodus 20:11. During the period of creation, things happened that do not normally happen – light direct from God, the spreading out of the heavens, creation of the heavenly bodies, creation of life, instant growth of plants, instant appearance of many kinds of animals and finally the creation of mankind. After 6 days God ceased from his work (kept sabbath), which means that there was an end to creative activity. But the work of maintenance continues as long as the world lasts. (John 5:17; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3)

        Gen 1:11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

        So these things sprang from the earth and bore fruit all in a single day, so that they would be ready for the animals coming on days 5 and 6 to eat.

        No one ever thought that these processes required longer until those without faith in God’s word tried to force it to accommodate the ideas of godless men. Augustine wanted to assert all of creation in a moment, as indeed God could easily have done, but he took a whole 6 days about it in order to give us a pattern for our work and rest.

        • Oliver,

          I think it is a stretch to say Six 24-hour days are the whole “point” of Genesis 1. They may be the point of Ken Ham’s ministry but I could rapidly name ten other things that are a higher priority than 24 hour days. Like – God made the universe; God gave the land to the humans; that God spoke things into existence; that man was made in God’s image… and so on.

          People have questioned the young earth interpretation for many many centuries before it ever became an issue in science – both on the Jewish and the Christian side. I document this thoroughly in Evolution 2.0. I’ve heard Ken Ham say what you just said about “No one ever thought that these processes required longer until those without faith in God’s word…” and he’s not telling the truth. You can easily verify the opposite by doing a little reading in church history.

          It’s clear that what takes place in Genesis 1:11 takes faaaaaaar longer than one day. So if this did happen in one day then the earth has millions of years of fake history that God fabricated. This becomes a far worse theological problem than anything we need to do with the text to say a day might not be 24 literal hours.

          • I did not say that “Six 24-hour days are the whole “point” of Genesis 1”.

            Sorry! I am not going to order your book in order to find out what you claim about older objections to 6-day creation. If you have the information on line, I will look at that.

            No, the process of Genesis 1:11 do not need more than one day. God speaks and they are.

            There is no millions of years history of the earth. I guess you may be referring to the rock layers laid down by the flood. There is plenty of evidence that the earth could not be so old.

            • You can find most of what I say on this subject by searching the site for “young earth.” At least a half dozen articles.

              One need not look hard to find early church fathers who thought the universe is old.

              I do find it interesting that neither hard core atheists nor hard core YECs will go get a book that says things they disagree with.

              Oliver, all the proof you need that the universe is old is the fact that there are stars 100 million light years away. When did the light leave the stars, Oliver?

              From the Appendix in my book:

              Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham has famously said Christians have only recently compro- mised their reading of Genesis to accommodate modern science since the 1800s (923). This is demonstrably false.
              The prominent church father Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 184–253) wrote in his book On First Principles, “To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a ‘first day’ and a ‘second’ and ‘third,’ in which also ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven?” He said, “Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point to certain mysteries” (918).
              Origen is not discrediting Genesis. He is rather saying that the most literal, childlike reading doesn’t wash. He’s saying Genesis, like all of Scripture, employs symbolism, metaphor, and subtlety. We must read it as literary adults.*
              Justin Martyr (A.D. 103–165), a major figure in the early Church, said, “For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject” (“Dialog with Trypho the Jew,” chapter 81, A.D. 155 [950]).
              This view is not limited to a handful of early Church scholars. Jewish sources long before modern science speak of a very old Earth.

      • Matthew McCoin says:

        You say plants would have to grow at an astronomical rate. Couldn’t God just create them with fruit already on them? Is he not powerful enough?

        • So how much of the universe’s history is fake?

          How old is a star that’s 100 million light years away? Is it really only 6000 years old?

          Do you expect a non-Christian to take you seriously when you say God made a universe 6000 years ago that has every appearance of being 13 billion years old?

  3. David C. Moorman says:

    “We have two choices:
    1) The earth brought forth vegetation and trees grew at thousands of times normal speed, or
    2) Perhaps a day is not 24 hours.

    The word “yom” clearly means something other than 24 hours in Genesis 2:4, where all the “days” are described as one “day.” Yom has even more meanings across the Old Testament.

    So I cast my vote with option #2.”

    Or option #3 is most likely….

    “In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).” – Genesis 1:1 KJV

    That we are dealing with a God that is so badass that He can “speak” time, space, and matter all into existence, all in one feel swoop, and all He asks of any believer in the Promise of Redemption through His Son is to have faith that He indeed did this.

    I unapologetically choose option #3!

    God’s a badass!

  4. Red says:

    Your exegesis needs an overhaul.

  5. Scot Painter says:

    I heard an atheist use this argument to refute that God exist. Sad!

  6. Sammy Sampson says:

    Intriguing that when reading genesis 1:24-25 that the author concentrates on 24 and not 25… God said let the earth bring forth…. and in 25 is a clarification of HOW the earth brought fourth…. 25.. And God MADE the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:—- so it is readily apparent that “earth” is probably the whole planet, but even if it is “dirt”, God still made them all, as he did “MAN” in Gen 2:7—from the dirt… so it would be normal to assume that he “made” all the others — they didn’t just evolve and grow…. also — Psalms 33: 6-9 also says HOW he did it. ——– “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
    For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” — so it is obvious that in Genesis God “speaks” things into existence — Gen 1:3 “And God said”— 1:6 “And God said”— 1:9 “And God said” -1:11 “And God said” — 1:14 “And God said” –1:20 “And God said” — 1:24 “And God said” — 1:26 “And God said” — 1:29 “And God said” — I really don’t understand how folks who actually READ the Bible can come up with such biased manipulation of the “intent and context” of the Scripture….. EVEN IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT, most folks understand context and intent in ANY book they read….

    • If he made it from the dirt, and if DNA literally contains language (it does), then how can you be dogmatic about insisting that God made a statement and POOF animals suddenly appeared? Why would that explanation be privileged over something we have direct experience with?

  7. Few things I enjoy more than watching believers of unsupportable religions argue about how their version of unsupportable truth trumps other versions of unsupportable truth. Cheers guys and keep it up!

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *