As I stated in yesterday’s post (here) I have difficulty with some Young Earth Creationist (YEC) organizations, namely Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI), not because of their beliefs, but because they routinely are deceptive in how they convey their beliefs. At times these organizations use outright lies and at other times they use more subtle but equally deceptive means (like quote mining) in an attempt to convince their audience the overall YEC narrative is correct. In this article I want to look at how they present their own views on the subject of “Kinds”1 and how they present evolution, specifically macroevolution.
Macroevolution
Both AiG and CMI frequently make the claim that there is no evidence for macroevolution and they often do so with the operative word in the sentence being “observed” as in, “No one has ever observed one kind of creature turning into another”.2 This clever use of words is technically true, no one has ever observed macroevolution, but is deceptive and false because according to the theory of evolution no one should be able to observe it because the timescales exceed human lifespans. What is happening is these organizations are making claims which fundamentally misrepresent their opponents beliefs so as to make them look bad– the Bible calls this “bearing false witness”. Another variation on this deception is to say that we have no evidence of speciation across kinds (I’ll deal with this below). Both of these ideas cast doubt on YEC opponents without ever challenging the claims made by those opponents. [Again I cannot stress this enough I am not saying one scientific model is true or false I am attacking how these organizations use deception in their arguments.]
The truth of the situation is that macroevolution (according to every resource I can find) is defined as “evolution above the species level of taxonomy” (If any biologist reads this feel free to correct my simplification).3 What this means is that any speciation from say the family level would be evidence that macroevolution has occurred, like for instance the claim that foxes and wolves (and all canids) share a common ancestor. The differing numbers of chromosomes between red foxes and wolves is evidence that macroevolution occurred. This is something AiG and CMI both believe, in their classifications of “Kinds” they include the whole Canid Family in the Dog Kind, thus providing evidence that macroevolution has occurred.4 So while AiG, CMI, and others unambiguously proclaim that macroevolution is a fiction, they have evidence demonstrating its reality on their websites. One of the clearest demonstrations of this misrepresentation was when Ken Ham (founder and CEO of AiG) called fellow YEC advocates “Young Earth Evolutionists” for no other reason than they categorize animals differently in their Kinds.5 The truth is that Ham can recognize evolution in the views of his fellows in the YEC camp because they are more inclusive than he is when it comes to kinds, but there is absolutely no difference in how Ken Coulson and others come to their conclusions. All of these individuals have the same beliefs about Kinds they simply group animals differently. Thus, if Ken Ham can say these individuals are supporting evolution and providing evidence for it, so is he.
These organizations also downplay their evidence for macroevolution in the way they discuss their own theory of Kinds. When they discuss the genetics of animals they usually use and example like the Dog King (one of AiG’s favorites) and they specifically focus on domestic dogs and wolves. Dogs and wolves are the same species and using these as an example helps the audience think there is very little variation within a Kind whereas if these organizations used animals like foxes and wolves they would have to admit these species share less of their genome (95%) than humans and chimps (98%). They intentionally use characteristics like size and coat to deflect attention away from more substantial genetic differences like chromosome numbers. Their simple deflection tactic is to show all the variation in the appearance of dog breeds and then to allow the audience to believe that this constitutes the total genetic variation within the Kind, thus demonstrating that all that is happening throughout the Dog Kind is the microevolution that makes a bulldog look different from a collie and both look different from a wolf.
But this is not the only way that these organizations deceive others about macroevolution, often speakers from these organizations will equate macroevolution (speciation from a common ancestor) with universal common descent (the idea that all life shares a common ancestor). Now again, I am not trying to argue that YEC is wrong or that evolution is correct, all I am saying is that it is both intellectually and morally repugnant for a Christian to misrepresent the beliefs of another in order to cast dispersion on those beliefs. The deception in this case is to say there is no proof of macroevolution when they mean is universal common descent. We as Christians should have the decency to honestly represent the beliefs of others in conversation and not stoop to fundamentally misrepresenting terms in an attempt to win an argument. I do not have very much training in biology but when I engage with someone whether that person defends YEC or evolution I try to at least intelligently engage by accurately using the terms that are part of the theory they represent. AiG and CMI often fail to do this and it simply makes Christians look ignorant.
“Kinds”
The use of the term Kinds is one of my biggest issues with these institutions because there is simply no objective definition for a Kind nor any universally agreed upon set of Kinds yet proponents act as if such classification is an easily understood fact. Ask a YEC advocate to define a Kind and they will usually start with “it’s roughly equivalent to the Family level taxonomy”. Ask why sheep and cows (Bovidae Family) are not in the same Kind, they will respond because they do not have a hybridization chain.6 The trouble is that many species in their Kinds do not demonstrate a hybridization chain either. In the case of their Dog Kind there is no documented modern hybridization chain between gray foxes and red foxes, let alone gray foxes and gray wolves. Yet this does not stop leading AiG’s and CMI’s authors like Jonathan Sarfati from making the exaggerated claim that this chain exists. I have had this interaction with Jonathan Sarfati a writer for both AiG and CMi who has pursued this strategy.7 And this leads to a general misunderstanding along their followers about what constitutes a Kind. The reality as Sarfati admits is that YEC organizations use a working definition that allows them to make guesses. This is fine as long as they admit that, the trouble is these organizations talk like they have definitive definitions, which is absolutely false and they admit any time they write on defining Kinds. There is such a need in these organizations to have clear black and white answers that they end up over selling what they know. Of course this also becomes a problem when they make the claim that no species evolved into a different Kind. At this point the concept of Kinds becomes so malleable that it is useless, because if you can prove one species descended from another, they simply adjust the boundaries of the Kind to accommodate the new information. This is precisely the reason Ken Ham called Ken Coulson an evolutionist, because Coulson recognizes that pakicetus is the ancestor of modern whales and Ham does not. Couslon simply extended the imaginary boundary of Kind to include a larger group of animals and Ham is unwilling to do so because he sees evidence of a linage of descent. The problem for me is not the idea is wrong (again I am not in the sciences) the problem is that these organizations treat Kinds like obvious classifications with easily discernible boundaries that unify their theory, and this simply is not reality.
This leads to another deceptive tactic employed by these YEC apologists, one of a false comparison. They often will cite the fact that there is no agreed upon simple definition of a species and then argue why do we need a definitive definition of Kind? The distinction is that species is a loose grouping of animals used for convenience but the grouping does not have any real weight. A species is (for both YEC and evolution) is simply the current end of the trail of speciation, but it does not have any real significance. Kind is different, it is the foundation of a linage. If the linage as a definite starting ancestor as YEC adherents claim, then there should be a way of marking that original ancestor. Now I can understand not knowing the original ancestor, but that is different from the false claim that not being able to define a kind is the same as not being able to define a species. Two distinct species can share a common ancestor so they can be hard to differentiate, two Kinds cannot.
The last deception I want to highlight in this section is the idea that they are simply following the Bible’s understanding that God created Kinds (see Genesis 1:20-25). They base this off the fact that most English translations use the word “kind” to render the Hebrew מִין. But while these organizations use the same word that appears in the Bible they use it in a far different way. Not only does the Hebrew word mean an individual type (i.e. species) but YEC organizations do not even categorize their Kinds after the Bible’s categories. The most telling instance of this comes in Genesis 1:25 where God divides the land animals between wild and domestic. No YEC categorization maintains this distinction, yet it is the primary distinction in Genesis.This is a real problem since these organizations claim to be Biblical literalists and following what the Bible says. The truth is they understand that the distinction between wild and domestic animals is impossible to maintain as a created distinction and so they disregard what the text says in favor of the needs of their categories. They then downplay and hide this reality while implying they hold to a literal reading. Again, I am not criticizing their theory of Kinds simply the fact it is not as literal to the text as they claim and their communications give people a false impression of reality. They are simply using the word from the Bible while providing it with their own meaning and trying to convince the world that the meaning they use is inherent in the word, which it is not.
Modern Mammals
One last claim on this theme I have seen from AiG is that modern mammals like beavers have been found alongside dinosaurs. I am not well versed in this field to dispute the claim but this is where I recommend scholars in the field like Dr. Joel Duff, a conservative Christian researcher in biology. Since I can’t refute the claim I will simply link his video. If you are interested in this topic at all I highly recommend his blog and YouTube channel.
Watching other Christians in science carry themselves in conversation, whether these Christians hold to evolution, Intelligent Design, or YEC, I am struck by the difference in AiG, CMI, and many of those associated with these organizations. They simply often allow the needs of their creationist ideas dictate their arguments, and this is deceptive. Again, this is not all creationists, but it is alarming that two of the biggest institutions are so invested in these clumsy deceptions. I sincerely hope that more people begin to call them out for these issues because if what I see on social media is any indication they are giving Christians a bad name.
- AiG & CMI both ascribe to what they term Baraminology which is the belief that God created one representative species which has then diversified to become all living species within that group. An example would be that God created one canine (AiG selects the hesperocyon) and from that all 100+ species of dogs descended. There is some issue with which species God created vs which species walked onto the Ark, whether these would have been the same species or not. The consensus among YEC organizations is that there were approximately 1,400 species on the Ark that diversified into the millions following the Flood. https://answersresearchjournal.org/determining-the-ark-kinds/
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/ ↩︎ - This comment is made frequently in their writing and videos.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mAN2vj0_c
https://x.com/AiG/status/1007956079798562816 ↩︎ - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/what-is-macroevolution/ ↩︎
- This is not the only evidence they provide a number of their “Kinds” like the Deer Kind also show that macroevolution is a real event. https://answersresearchjournal.org/mammalian-ark-kinds/ ↩︎
- https://answersingenesis.org/young-earth-evolution/
https://creationunfolding.com/2023/03/21/answering-answers-in-genesis-what-is-young-earth-evolution/
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2023/02/02/ken-ham-finds-threats-to-young-earth-creationist-within-young-earth-creationism/ ↩︎ - A hybridization chain is the idea that if species A can hybridize with species B and species B can hybridize with spaces C then even though species A and C cannot hybridize all three are known to be in the same Kind. ↩︎
- If you care to follow it here is a thread where Sarfati argues that there is a hybridization chain between gray foxes and wolves but never demonstrates any evidence. elsewhere in the thread he links to an article he wrote for CMI questioning whether foxes and wolves should be in the same Kind. https://x.com/the_blind_guide/status/1821502412550484473 ↩︎
Squinting in the Light 
