The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Created kind

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from Kind)
Jump to: navigation, search
Dog varieties.jpg

Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry. The phrase refers to the Genesis account of the creation week during which God created many kinds of plants and animals. They are also referred to as "original kinds," "Genesis kinds," and more formally by creation scientists as baramin, a term coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh from the Hebrew words ברוֹא, bara (create) and מִין, min (kind). The study of baramin (known as Baraminology) is a rapidly growing field of creation science involved with the identification of the created kinds.[1]

History of the Concept

The concept of the "created kind" originates from the biblical book of Genesis where it is first mentioned in chapter 1.

"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... Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. 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." Genesis 1:12-24

In contrast to the evolutionary principle of common ancestry, creation biologists argue that organisms were created in a finite number of discrete forms as described in the Bible, which subsequently diversified through speciation and microevolution. There is much uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds". The original Hebrew word min is used to describe a variety of groups of organisms. Nevertheless, creationists are in agreement that the phrase refers to a distinct barrier between different types or organisms and a limitation on variation.

In The Genesis Record (1976), Henry Morris states:

It is significant that the phrase “after his kind” occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely is meant by the term “kind” (Hebrew min), it does indicate the limitations of variation. Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after some other kind.[2]

Early creationists used the word "species" (Latin for "kind") for the concept of "created kind" referred to in the Bible. The concept of "fixity of species" persisted in the minds of scientists and laymen for some time, despite the narrower definition of species later adopted, as illustrated when Henry Morris continues:

It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family".[2]

Theologian Russell Mixter comments on this early view:

One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis.[3]

Due to an improved understanding of speciation, it is now widely recognized by creationists that the process has been a regular part of the development of the created kinds. In contrast to the earlier views, today most creation scientists see the trend opposite to what Morris predicted: equating the "family" level as most often identical to the kinds of the Bible, sometimes the "genus," and only once in a while the "species".

In 1941, creation biologist Frank L. Marsh proposed that the Biblical created kind could be defined in terms of reproduction. He argued that two creatures which can successfully mate must have descended from the same kind. This idea has been adopted to support the practice of baraminology, the attempt to identify the created kinds.[1] The few creationists who work in baraminology have attempted to derive a consistent set of rules for establishing when this criteria is met. Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer refined the criteria to state that if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same "basic type". Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind. Scherer also updated Marsh's explanation of true fertilization:

Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes.

Assigning the kinds to a particular level of the modern taxonomic hierarchy has proved problematic, as evolutionary assumptions have influenced the classification system. As a result, the kinds do not coincide on a consistent basis with any particular taxonomy level. Nevertheless, today most creation scientists identify the family level of classification (such as Felidae) as most frequently synonymous with the baramin, whereas for others like humans it coincides with the genus level (homo).

Diversification of Kinds

As subpopulations become isolated, each group is less diverse than the parent population; some gene combinations may be lost entirely.
The phylogenetic tree of evolutionary biology.

The created kind is based upon an idea that organisms were created with the innate ability to vary a great deal, and evolutionary processes are merely the means by which that genetic information is expressed.

Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.[4]

The creationary phylogenetic tree is similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree, but bears two important differences.

  • First, while the evolutionary tree traces life back to a single cell, the creation biology tree traces life back to a number of unrelated populations that roughly resembled the forms of life today. The evolutionary model is single monophyletic tree, whereas the creation model contains many polypheletic trees. Those who tend to support a polyphetlic origin of life are often called pattern pluralists.[5]
  • Second, while the evolutionary tree credits evolutionary change to an increase in genetic diversity from simpler to more complex organisms, the creation biology tree credits small mutational change to the rearrangement and expression of genetic variation that was "built in" to the original kinds;

Many creationists believe that change within a population is accomplished only through the rearrangement of preexisting information or the degradation of the created genome.[6] Others assert that organisms were designed with a molecular machinery capable of editing genes, adding new alleles to the population, which generates diversity.[7] It is generally agreed upon that natural selection, reproductive isolation (speciation), and genetic drift are effective in leading to the formation of populations that are highly adapted to their environment. Speciation and genetic drift is believed to have occurred at high frequencies during the dispersion immediately after the global flood.

The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.[8]

Selection is used to explain the diversification of distinct species by both creationists and evolutionists. Imagine a small gene pool in which there are genes for both blue and brown eyes evenly spread throughout the population. In such a situation, some people will be born with brown eyes, and other people will be born with blue eyes. However, if part of the population separates from the main group, and the smaller population has only the gene for brown eyes, then the descendants of that smaller population will have only brown eyes. The characteristic for brown eyes has become "set" in the isolated population.

Many creationists believe that the formation of the races was also a result of this process. The population on board the ark is believed to have been a hybrid population containing the genetic characteristics of all the races. When the population spread over the Earth after the flood, gene pools became isolated and began to adapt differentially to the regions into which they settled.[9] For example, skin color became lightened by natural selection, so that northern populations developed lighter skin in order to produce vitamin D in more sun-deprived areas, while equatorial populations developed darker skin to protect them from the harmful effects of the sun. As a result of the population isolation, the racial characteristics became "set" in the respective populations, resulting in the characteristic races observable today.

Boundaries Between Kinds

Most of the controversy regarding created kinds revolves around the asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creation biologists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.

The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related.

Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and frogs are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European races are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."

Since 2001, creation biologists at the Baraminology Study Group have been developing a new method for demarcating created kinds. The new method involves the application of morphological character data to create a "biological character space," which can then be used to determine continuity and discontinuity between species, and ultimately to determine "biological trajectories." Creation scientists generally recognize that kinds are a form of clade since created kinds refer to common ancestry. Baraminology, or the effort to classify life according to the created kinds, is thus the creationist equivalent of cladistics.

"'Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'" - Leviticus 19:19

Endogenous Retroviruses

Recent genetic study[10] has revealed that Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) have the capacity to attach to RNA at certain sites within a kind. If ERVs attach in gametic cells, the viral genetic material can then be passed on to the next generation. Some sites are shared between kinds. For example, apes may have ERVs that share a site with humans. Evolutionists claim that the given site was populated in the ape-kind and appears in the human-kind by heredity. This would make sense, except there are many sites in apes not occupied in humans, and vice versa. Since the sites are common locations for ERVs to attach, another explanation is that they simply arrived independently.

A more interesting observation about ERVs is that a "kind" will share common ERVs on common sites in the RNA, but another kind will have different ERVs on different sites entirely. For example, housecats and lions share the same ERVs on the same sites, but their ERVs are not the same as those on an ape, nor at the same sites. This has led some to speculate that ERVs could be an independently observable arbiter of the boundaries between kinds.

In the end, much of the hype about ERVs has some creationists unnecessarily in a tumult. Many of the claims about ERVs are not backed up by empirical evidence.[11] For example, the process of ERV integration into a host genome has never been observed, and many claimed ERV sequences have been found to have important roles in placenta formation and gene regulation in mammals.[11] Before answering on the subject, one should do more investigation on the facts, which will make it easier to debunk, or at least find flaws in evolutionary claims.


Main Article: Baraminology

To understand the true history of life on Earth, it is important that creation biologists identify the organisms that were created in the beginning. It is generally assumed that the "created kind" is analogous to the taxonomic Family, although numerous exceptions certainly exist. A canonical list of kinds has not been constructed and identifications are extremely provisional (with the exception of humans, on which there is a strong creationist consensus). Baraminologists draw upon several sources of information to identify the created kinds, which include scriptural accounts, hybridization data, and the fossil record.

It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[12]

Hybridization Data

Creationists view sexual compatibility to be one of the best physical indicators that organism belong to the same baramin (created kind).[13] This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to genetic drift. The Bible also states that God created organisms with seed in it, according to their various kinds. Therefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related. A hybrid is the progeny that results from such a mating.

Hybridization especially refers to human breeding of plants or animals of different breeds or species, although wild varieties are recognized. Hybrid plants are created when the pollen from one kind of plant is used to pollinate an entirely different variety, resulting in a new plant. This type of crossbreeding shows that the created kind is broader than the species designation, and often synonymous with the family level of taxonomic classification.

To aid in the identification of baramins, a database of known cases of interspecies reproduction is needed. To meet this need, Ashley Robinson and Todd Wood started an Internet-accessible database of published references to such interspecific hybrids. This important creation science research tool is called the HybriDatabase.[14] The database is hosted and maintained by the Center for Origins Research (CORE) at Bryan College; it currently contains nearly 5000 hybridization records.

Examples of hybrids:

Bertram the Liger is a hybrid (a cross between a male lion and a tiger).
  • The Mule—a cross between a horse and a donkey.
  • The Liger—a cross between a lion and a tiger.
  • Kekaimalu the Wholphin is a fertile hybrid of two different genera, the False killer whale and Bottlenose dolphin. Kekaimalu herself gave birth to a calf, showing she was a fertile hybrid. Thus, these creatures classified as different genera are really a single polytypic (many-type) baramin.
  • Bos (true cattle) and Bison (American buffalo) can produce a fertile hybrid called a Cattalo. Bos and Bison are thus likewise the same polytypic baramin, although they classified as different genera.
  • Brassica and Raphanus are different plant genera which hybridize to what has been given a new generic name Raphanobrassica.
  • The creationist Don Batten helped create a hybrid of the fruit species lychee (Litchi chinensis) and longan (Dimocarpus longana), again from different genera.

Fossil Record

To identify whether a particular variety was created or evolved, baraminologists compare living organisms with those visible in the fossil record (which creationists interpret as having mostly been laid down during the flood). Creationists recognize that organisms change dramatically over time, and many new species have developed since the creation. However, it is also viewed as improbable that any specific variety would have evolved independently before and also after the great deluge. Therefore, it is believed to be assumable that any organism alive today, which has obvious ancestors in the fossil record, is a created kind.

Biblical References


Unfortunately, the descriptions of the kinds of plants and animals formed during the creation week are very general, and provide no specific definitions that would help with the identification of created kinds.

"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." - Genesis 1:9-13

"Then God said, 'Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.' God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.' There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day." - Genesis 1:20-23

"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. Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.' Then God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food'; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." - Genesis 1:24-31

Summary of the original kinds detailed in the creation account found within Genesis 1 .

  • Many kinds of plants bearing fruit;
  • Many kinds of trees bearing fruit;
  • Many kinds of great sea creatures;
  • Many kinds of sessile and mobile aquatic organisms;
  • Many kinds of birds;
  • Many kinds of livestock;
  • Many kinds of insects, and;
  • Many kinds of wild animals.

The Flood

Additional references to kinds are present during the description of the global flood, but again these statements are so general as to provide no specific definitions. We can only be sure that a great many species from each broad category of animal were present on board the ark. For example we know that there were many birds due to the statement "every bird of every sort". However, we can not be certain certain God created just one species of birds like the "bird of prey", or several different species. Likewise were there many water fowl created or just one? Animals can change so dramatically through time that making such determination is exceedingly difficult. If only Noah had provided modern baraminologists with a complete manifest!

"On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him." - Genesis 7:13-16

The only specific mentions at the time of the flood are to the dove and raven, which Noah used to test whether the earth had dried sufficiently. From this reference we can sufficiently conclude that there were indeed a great many birds on board the ark.

"Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land; but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself." - Genesis 8:6-9

Other Biblical References

There are other mentions of plants and animals in the Old and New Testaments, but caution should be given to accepting these as baramin. Given the rapidity with which speciation and diversification can occur, it is possible that many of the animals listed elsewhere in the Bible have developed since the global flood. For example the list of clean and unclean animals in Deuteronomy 14 contains references to the red and black kite, which should probably be viewed as belonging to the same baramin (created kind). It also lists several species of owls including the desert owl, which has arguably adapted to conditions that did not exist before the flood.

"You shall not eat any detestable thing. These are the animals which you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep. Any animal that divides the hoof and has the hoof split in two and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. These you may eat of all that are in water: anything that has fins and scales you may eat, but anything that does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you. You may eat any clean bird. But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the red kite, the falcon, and the kite in their kinds, and every raven in its kind, and the ostrich, the owl, the sea gull, and the hawk in their kinds, the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the cormorant, the stork, and the heron in their kinds, and the hoopoe and the bat. And all the teeming life with wings are unclean to you; they shall not be eaten. You may eat any clean bird." - Deuteronomy 14:3-20

Broad Biblical Categories

An analysis of the Biblical references to plants and animals reveals broad categories that should not be confused with the Biblical kind - as used by creation biologists. When comparing the three primary sources, the Genesis 1 account of Creation (a good framework), and the two Mosaic Law chapters about clean and unclean foods (which shows how distinctions are made within these categories and names specific families within) in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 . These references reveal two broad categories of plants, and eight categories of life. The names provided below are the original Hebrew words used in Genesis 1, because there can be controversy over what the correct English translation for these words should be. Links are provided to Strong's definitions for these words for ease of examining how they are used throughout the Bible.


Genesis 1:11-12 provides 2 definite categories of plants. A third possible type may be mentioned, Deshe (KJV grass), but may just be a generic term for plants used to describe the following 2, especially since the word Miyn (KJV kind) is not clearly used of it.

  1. 'Eseb Zara' Zera' ("Seed-Sowing Plant") - Three Hebrew words are used, 'Eseb meaning plant (KJV herb or grass), Zara' meaning to sow (KJV sow), and Zera' meaning seed (KJV seed), thus Seed-Sowing Plant. It was created the 3rd day of creation. (Genesis 1:11-12 )
  2. Periy 'Ets ("Fruit Tree") - The Hebrew words used are Periy meaning fruit and 'Ets meaning Tree. It is specifically said to have seed within itself. It was created the 3rd day of creation. (Genesis 1:11-12 )


Concerning other life, the following categories are provided in Genesis 1:20-30 :

  1. Mayim Sherets ("Marine Creeping Things") - The Hebrew word Sherets is often translated creeping thing, and is used with another Hebrew word Mayim meaning waters, thus effectively referring to small marine life. It is the first creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and was made the 5th day of creation (thus involving marine life). (Genesis 1:20 ) In Leviticus 11:10 the marine creeping things were specifically said to be everything without fins and scales in the seas and rivers.
  2. 'Owph ("Flying Creatures") - This Hebrew word is often translated "fowl" by the KJV but simply refers to flying creatures, both birds and insects, and appears the best defined of the Biblical families. They are the second creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and were made the 5th day. (Genesis 1:20-30 ) Specific bird families mentioned include nesher (KJV eagles), perec (KJV ossifrage), 'ozniyah (KJV ospray), da'ah (KJV vulture), 'ayah (KJV kite), 'oreb (KJV raven), bath ya'anah (KJV owl), tachmac (KJV night hawk), shachaph (KJV cuckow), nets (KJV hawk), kowc (KJV little owl), shalak (KJV cormorant), dayah (KJV vulture), yanshuwph (KJV great owl), tanshemeth (KJV swan), qa'ath (KJV pelican), ra'ah (KJV glede), racham (KJV gier eagle), chaciydah (KJV stork), 'anaphah (KJV heron), duwkiyphath (KJV lapwing), and 'atalleph (KJV bat). (Leviticus 11:13-19 , Deuteronomy 14:11-21 )
    • 'Owph Sherets ("Flying Creeping Things"), i.e. insects, were apparently a subgroup within 'Owph. Specific families named included 'arbeh (KJV locusts), col'am (KJV bald locusts), chargol (KJV beetles), and chagab (KJV grasshoppers). Insects were divided into two groups, one okay for eating (Clean), and one not okay (Unclean), with the difference those which had 4 legs as opposed to a different number. (Leviticus 11:21-25 )
  3. Gadowl Tanniyn ("Huge Dragons") - Two Hebrew words are used here, Gadowl meaning "Huge" and Tanniyn, a word of uncertain origin usually translated "Dragon" by the KJV (21 times) and otherwise translated "Serpent" (3 times), "Whale" (3 times), or "Sea Monster (1 time). In Genesis 1 the two words are translated "Great Whales". It appears to involve some kind of huge reptiles of uncertain origin, probably dinosaurs. It is the 3rd creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and was created the 5th day. (Genesis 1:21 ) A specific family is the livyathan (KJV leviathan, also called piercing serpent - Isaiah 13:22), a deep-sea-dwelling, fire-breathing, nearly invulnerable creature with air-tight scales mentioned in Job 41 and Isaiah 27:1 said to play with ships (Psalms 104:26 ), that was destroyed by God and given as food to those in the wilderness. (Psalms 74:13-14 ).
  4. Mayim Chay ("Marine Life") - Chay is often translated "life", whereas Mayim refers to waters, thus Marine Life. It appears a major category for fish and larger marine life. It is the 4th creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and was created the 5th day. (Genesis 1:21-22 ) It appears grouped together with 3 of the 4 previously mentioned categories (minus 'Owph) as Dagah Yam (KJV fish of the sea) later in the chapter. (Genesis 1:26-28 ) They appear to be defined as having fins and scales in Leviticus 11:9 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 .
  5. 'Erets Chay ("Earth Life") - Two Hebrew words are used here, Chay often translated "life" by the KJV, and 'Erets meaning Earth, in other words, Earth Life (KJV beasts of the earth). They are the 5th creation mentioned and were created the 6th day. (Genesis 1:24-30 ) They were mentioned twice in v. 24 and thus may include two primary kinds. They appear to have been divided by those which went on their paws on all fours, and those which did not. (Leviticus 11:27-28 )
  6. Behemah ("Cattle") - The Hebrew word is always translated by the KJV as "beast" or "cattle" and appears to involve the idea of cattle. They are the 6th creation mentioned and were created the 6th day. (Genesis 1:24-26 ) They were defined in two groups, those with parted hooves/cloved feet and chewed the cud, and those which did not. (Leviticus 11:4 , Deuteronomy 14:6-7 ) Specific families appear to include chamowr (KJV ass), showr (KJV ox), seh (KJV sheep), gamal (KJV camel), te'ow (KJV wild ox), 'ez (KJV goat), 'ayal (KJV hart), tsebiy (KJV roebuck), yachmuwr (KJV fallow deer), 'aqqow (KJV wild goat), zemer (KJV chamois), shaphan (KJV coney), 'arnebath (KJV hare), diyshon (KJV pygarg), and chaziyr (KJV swine). (Exodus 22:10 , Leviticus 11:4-8 , Deuteronomy 14:4-8 )
  7. Remes ("Reptiles") - Remes is usually translated "creeping thing" by the KJV, and the word appears to mean Reptile or Lizard. It doesn't appear to involve insects, which are mentioned instead as Owph in Leviticus 11:20-23. This is the 7th creation of Genesis 1 and was created the 6th day. (Genesis 1:24-26 ) It appears to be also described as Sherets 'Erets in (Leviticus 11:29 ), in describing creeping things of the earth, with specific families said to be 'akbar (KJV mice), tsab (KJV tortoise), 'anaqah (KJV ferret), koach (KJV chameleon), leta'ah (KJV lizard), chomet (KJV snail), and tanshemeth (KJV mole). (Leviticus 11:29-35 ).
  8. 'Adam ("Man") - Meaning humans. They were the 8th and last of God's creations made in Genesis 1, and were created on the 6th day of creation; designated as caretakers of the other creations. (Genesis 1:26-30 )
Feature star.jpg
Featured Article
Recognized for exceptional quality and value. See also other
featured articles.


  1. 1.0 1.1 Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms By Wayne Frair. Creation Research Society Quarterly 37(2), pp.82-91. Sept. 2000.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Morris, H., The Genesis Record, Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 1976. p63.
  3. The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture* [sic] by J. Barton Payne. Journal of American Scientific Affiliation 10:17-20. December 1958.
  4. Sarfati, Jonathan. Refuting Evolution 2 Chapter 4 - Argument: Natural selection leads to speciation. Greenforest AR: Master Books, 2002. (p77)
  5. Doolittle WF and Bapteste E. "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104(7):2043-2049, January 29, 2007. doi:10.1073/pnas.0610699104 Accessed October 16, 2008.
  6. Sarfati, p56
  7. Genetic Variability by Design by Chris Ashcraft. Journal of Creation 18(2) 2004.
  8. Sarfati, p79.
  9. Sarfati, p81
  11. 11.0 11.1 Tomkins, Jeffrey P. (2015). Viral Genome Junk is Bunk. Acts & Facts. 44(4)
  12. Mammoth—riddle of the Ice Age by Jonathan Sarfati. Creation 22(2):10–15, March 2000.
  13. Sarfati, p77-78
  14. HybriDatabase Center for Origins Research, Bryan College.

External Links