Cover Image

HARDBACK
$59.95



View/Hide Left Panel

refers to (unacceptable) common ancestry of different created kinds. It also refers to the acquisition of major morphological features or body plan changes, also considered impossible without the direct involvement of God. Both creation science and ID approach the micro/macro divide similarly: microevolution is accepted, and macroevolution (their definition) is rejected.

SPECIAL CREATION

The conservative Christian theological doctrine of special creation is central to creation science. Special creation insists on the creation of natural phenomena in their present form, although variations occur. The most extreme special creationists believe that the entire universe (galaxies, stars, the earth, and living things on the earth) was created essentially as we see it today, with only limited change since the Creation. Young-earth creationists such as Henry Morris accept such a view. Various schools of old-earth creationism accept cosmological evolution, but all reject biological evolution. For them, God specially creates organisms intermittently over the millions of years of the earth’s history.

The idea of specially created “kinds” of organisms derives from the Book of Genesis:

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: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:25, King James version).

For conservative Christians who believe that every word of the Bible is inerrant truth, biblical “kinds” are highly significant, because the language is plain and the phrase is repeated again and again in Genesis. “Kinds” have enough genetic variability to adapt to local conditions, but adaptation is strictly limited to the boundaries set by God; because kinds are specially created, common ancestry between created kinds is impossible by definition. Creationists have made efforts to discern the limits of the created kinds, but applying the doctrine to profligate biological diversity has proven difficult. According to Duane Gish, a biochemist who recently retired from the ICR, a “kind” might correspond to a whole phylum in the case of invertebrates, a family for some vertebrates, or a species in the case of humans (Gish, 1985).

The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science, but it is a common misconception that ID advocates accept common ancestry and “macroevolution.” In fact, the vast majority of ID proponents deny the common ancestry of humans and apes. Behe is the only significant exception, although he is much-touted by those who wish to



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement