Biblical ‘Kinds’: A 1946 Perspective on Young Earth Creationism

I recently obtained a 1946 book that included a discussion of “created kinds You’ve probably heard this phrase before if you’ve engaged with creationist literature or debates about origins. But what does it really mean? Where does the idea come from, and how has it shaped young Earth creationist understanding of life’s diversity?

In my latest video, I explore these questions by reading portion from that book, “The New Deluge” by Harold Clark. This text gives us a unique window into how creationists were thinking about kinds nearly 80 years ago, and you might be surprised by how similar some of the ideas are to modern creationist arguments.

First, let’s set the stage. The concept of “kinds” comes from Genesis, where God is described as creating organisms “according to their kinds.” Creationists have long grappled with what exactly this means and how it relates to the diversity of life we see today.

One of the key points I make in the video is that Clark, writing in 1946, already recognized that “kinds” were not equivalent to our modern concept of species. He explicitly states that it’s impossible to say whether kinds correspond to species, genera, families, or any other taxonomic group. This is important because it shows that the idea of kinds being broader than individual species isn’t a new development in creationist thought.

Clark uses some interesting analogies to try to explain his understanding of kinds. He compares them to car manufacturers, suggesting that just as we can recognize a Ford as distinct from a Chrysler, we might think of broader “kinds” in nature. But he also acknowledges that there might be “kinds within kinds” – for example, a rodent kind that includes squirrel kinds and rat kinds.

This hierarchical view of kinds is fascinating because it shows how creationists were already grappling with the complexity of life’s diversity. It’s not as simple as saying “God created every species we see today.” Instead, Clark is proposing a system where God created broader categories that then diversified into the species we see today.

One of the most interesting aspects of Clark’s writing is his acknowledgment of change within kinds. He accepts that new species can form and even suggests that genera might change over time. However, he draws a line at higher taxonomic levels, arguing that there’s no evidence for one major group changing into another.

This is remarkably similar to arguments made by modern creationists. Many today accept what they call “microevolution” – changes within a kind – but reject “macroevolution” – changes from one kind to another. The debate then becomes about where to draw that line.

In the video, I also touch on Clark’s ideas about how the fossil record formed. He proposes a model of “ecological zonation” to explain the order of fossils in the geologic column. This idea suggests that different pre-flood ecological communities were buried in succession during the flood, resulting in the patterns we see in the rocks today.

What’s particularly interesting about all of this is how it challenges some common misconceptions about creationist thought. Many people assume that creationists believe in the absolute fixity of species – that every animal we see today looked exactly the same when it stepped off Noah’s Ark. But even in 1946, we see creationists like Clark wrestling with ideas of change and diversification within divinely created categories.

At the same time, my reading of “The New Deluge” highlights how little progress has been made in defining what exactly a “kind” is. Despite 75 years of further research and debate, modern creationists still struggle with many of the same questions Clark was asking. What exactly defines a kind? How much change can occur within a kind? Where do we draw the lines between kinds?

These questions remain contentious even within creationist circles today. Some argue for kinds at the family level, others at the genus level, and there’s ongoing debate about how to identify and classify kinds.

In sharing this historical perspective, my goal isn’t to criticize any particular view. Rather, I hope to provide some context for current debates and show how these ideas have evolved (or in some cases, remained remarkably consistent) over time.

Understanding this history is crucial for anyone engaging in discussions about creationism and evolution. It helps us avoid strawman arguments and engage more productively with the actual ideas being proposed.