What Does Special Creation Mean?

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am interested in getting opinions on the meaning of "special creation" and what support there is for the various viewpoints.

The reason for my question is that Ernst Mayr in his book "What Evolution Is" gave a definition and Julian Huxley before him did likewise and in both cases they seemed to assume that it means that the first lifeforms were created at the beginning and have never changed since then.

Does anyone here believe that is a good definition of the term?
 

Sealeaf

New member
I'd love to try to define it but that would not be fair. It should be someone who believes in it that defines it.

Oh, what the heck...Fair or not, here goes.

Special creation is the belief that each species of animal and plant was made directly by God without prior antcedents.

What the vast number of fossils that testify to the past existence of animals which are currently extinct says about God's craftsmanship is another matter.
 

Jukia

New member
Seems to me that Mayr's and Huxley's definitions really do not matter much and are probably just a bob b straw man to take focus off the real issues. So:
1. I would like to see bob b's definition
2. While I am sure that some who believe in Genesis think that extant species were all created in one fell swoop by God in the first 6 days even most creationists will buy "microevolution" (without however having any good rationale for why evolution stops other than personal incredulity).
3. My understanding of Special Creation, in its simplest form, is "Goddidit" meaning that God specially created everything. The whole universe. Literal Genesis believers think, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that it happened in one literal week less than 10,000 years ago.
 

SUTG

New member
I don't think that even the people who believe in special creation have any idea what they are talking about. They seldom get much into the details beyond saying that evolution is wrong. Their main focus is memorizing 'zingers' to spew at evolutionists; "Why are there still monkeys?", "Evolution violates the Second Law of Evolution", "How does Evolution explain the Big Bang?", "Were you there?", "Why don't we ever find a half-giraffe, half-camel?".... You get the picture.
 

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
they seemed to assume that it means that the first lifeforms were created at the beginning and have never changed since then.

Does anyone here believe that is a good definition of the term?
The term special creation refers specifically to the doctrine of fixity of species. I don't know what you mean a "good definition" -- that is the definition. Perhaps another term should be coined (or maybe one is) to refer to young earth creationists who don't believe in fixity of species.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The term special creation refers specifically to the doctrine of fixity of species. I don't know what you mean a "good definition" -- that is the definition. Perhaps another term should be coined (or maybe one is) to refer to young earth creationists who don't believe in fixity of species.

I would appreciate any information you might have regarding how such a term became doctrine in the Church, since there does not seem to be any support for "fixity of species" it in the Bible.

My own theory is that the Church adopted in from the Greek philosophers, like they did with so many other false ideas such as an immovable Earth, etc.

I believe the underlying basis is a logical argument something as follows:

1) God is perfect

2) A perfect God would create perfect lifeforms

3) Any change from perfection would necessarily be toward imperfection.

4) Thus, lifeforms have never changed ("fixity of species").
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I found this interesting tidbit which seems to support my theory about the source of "fixity of species" and "special creation".

One of the more interesting of Aulie's points is that the "doctrine of
special creation" -- prominent as a serious and respected biological concept
during the late 18th and early 19th centuries -- derives NOT from the Bible,
but rather from Plato and Aristotle (the fixity of species that are earthly
manifestations of eternal "ideas"; the eternality of matter; the
hierarchical ordering of creaturely forms, etc.).
What Darwin denounced was not the theological doctrine of creation per se
(the world owes its being to a Creator-God), but the inadequacies of the
biological doctrine of special creation built on the ancient Greek
worldview.
1. Aulie, Richard P. (1983) "Evolution and Creation: Historical Aspects of
the Controversy," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 127(6):
pp. 418-462.
 

Sealeaf

New member
I would appreciate any information you might have regarding how such a term became doctrine in the Church, since there does not seem to be any support for "fixity of species" it in the Bible.

My own theory is that the Church adopted in from the Greek philosophers, like they did with so many other false ideas such as an immovable Earth, etc.

I believe the underlying basis is a logical argument something as follows:

1) God is perfect

2) A perfect God would create perfect lifeforms

3) Any change from perfection would necessarily be toward imperfection.

4) Thus, lifeforms have never changed ("fixity of species").
Sounds plausable. Prehaps the Vatican Archives site might have some info or New Advent. Its a sort of para doctrinal idea. Not really religion but the sort of thing that a middle ages scholar would consider "natural philosphy".
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sounds plausable. Prehaps the Vatican Archives site might have some info or New Advent. Its a sort of para doctrinal idea. Not really religion but the sort of thing that a middle ages scholar would consider "natural philosphy".

Another piece of the puzzle:

A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
by ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
LL.D. (Yale), L.H.D. (Columbia), PH.DR. (Jena)
Late President and Professor of History at Cornell University
Two Volumes Combined
New York
D. Appleton and Company
1898

Anaximander, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and, greatest of all, Aristotle, as we have seen, developed them, making their way at times by guesses toward truths since established by observation. Aristotle especially, both by speculation and observation, arrived at some results which, had Greek freedom of thought continued, might have brought the world long since to its present plane of biological knowledge; for he reached something like the modern idea of a succession of higher organizations from lower, and made the fruitful suggestion of ``a perfecting principle'' in Nature.

With the coming in of Christian theology this tendency toward a yet truer theory of evolution was mainly stopped, but the old crude view remained, and as a typical example of it we may note the opinion of St. Basil the Great in the fourth century. Discussing the work of creation, he declares that, at the command of God, ``the waters were gifted with productive power''; ``from slime and muddy places frogs, flies, and gnats came into being''; and he finally declares that the same voice which gave this energy and quality of productiveness to earth and water shall be similarly efficacious until the end of the world. St. Gregory of Nyssa held a similar view.

This idea of these great fathers of the Eastern Church took even stronger hold on the great father of the Western Church. For St. Augustine, so fettered usually by the letter of the sacred text, broke from his own famous doctrine as to the acceptance of Scripture and spurned the generally received belief of a creative process like that by which a toymaker brings into existence a box of playthings. In his great treatise on Genesis he says: ``To suppose that God formed man from the dust with bodily hands is very childish.... God neither formed man with bodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips.''

St. Augustine then suggests the adoption of the old emanation or evolution theory, shows that ``certain very small animals may not have been created on the fifth and sixth days, but may have originated later from putrefying matter.'' argues that, even if this be so, God is still their creator, dwells upon such a potential creation as involved in the actual creation, and speaks of animals ``whose numbers the after-time unfolded.''

In his great treatise on the Trinity - the work to which he devoted the best thirty years of his life - we find the full growth of this opinion. He develops at length the view that in the creation of living beings there was something like a growth - that God is the ultimate author, but works through secondary causes; and finally argues that certain substances are endowed by God with the power of producing certain classes of plants and animals.
This idea of a development by secondary causes apart from the original creation was helped in its growth by a theological exigency. More and more, as the organic world was observed, the vast multitude of petty animals, winged creatures, and ``creeping things'' was felt to be a strain upon the sacred narrative. More and more it became difficult to reconcile the dignity of the Almighty with his work in bringing each of these creatures before Adam to be named; or to reconcile the human limitations of Adam with his work in naming ``every living creature''; or to reconcile the dimensions of Noah's ark with the space required for preserving all of them, and the food of all sorts necessary for their sustenance, whether they were admitted by twos, as stated in one scriptural account, or by sevens, as stated in the other.

The inadequate size of the ark gave especial trouble. Origen had dealt with it by suggesting that the cubit was Six times greater than had been supposed. Bede explained Noah's ability to complete so large a vessel by supposing that he worked upon it during a hundred years; and, as to the provision of food taken into it, he declared that there was no need of a supply for more than one day, since God could throw the animals into a deep sleep or otherwise miraculously make one day's supply sufficient; he also lessened the strain on faith still more by diminishing the number of animals taken into the ark - supporting his view upon Augustine's theory of the later development of insects out of carrion.

Doubtless this theological necessity was among the main reasons which led St. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, to incorporate this theory, supported by St. Basil and St. Augustine, into his great encyclopedic work which gave materials for thought on God and Nature to so many generations. He familiarized the theological world still further with the doctrine of secondary creation, giving such examples of it as that ``bees are generated from decomposed veal, beetles from horseflesh, grasshoppers from mules, scorpions from crabs,'' and, in order to give still stronger force to the idea of such transformations, he dwells on the biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar, which appears to have taken strong hold upon medieval thought in science, and he declares that other human beings had been changed into animals, especially into swine, wolves, and owls.

This doctrine of after-creations went on gathering strength until, in the twelfth century, Peter Lombard, in his theological summary, The Sentences, so powerful in moulding the thought of the Church, emphasized the distinction between animals which spring from carrion and those which are created from earth and water; the former he holds to have been created ``potentially'' the latter ``actually.''

In the century following, this idea was taken up by St. Thomas Aquinas and virtually received from him its final form. In the Summa, which remains the greatest work of medieval thought, he accepts the idea that certain animals spring from the decaying bodies of plants and animals, and declares that they are produced by the creative word of God either actually or virtually. He develops this view by saying, ``Nothing was made by God, after the six days of creation, absolutely new, but it was in some sense included in the work of the six days''; and that ``even new species, if any appear, have existed before in certain native properties, just as animals are produced from putrefaction.''

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/creation/evolution-in-animated-nature.html

But somehow the idea of "fixity of species", although not directly mentioned in scripture, continued to be a religious teaching associated with the term "special creation", which many theologians in the Middle Ages and before had used to refer specifically to the creation of Adam and Eve.

By doing this, the entire idea of creation of lifeforms by God was thought to have been proven incorrect, even though Darwin, rejecting "fixity of species" (correctly) did not immediately reject God's role in creating lifeforms.

The modern creationist's view is to adopt the Genesis account, while recognizing that the tremendous variation of forms we see in nature were not present in the original six day creation.

Another possibility, other than evolution (mutations plus natural selection), is that sexual recombination coupled with "built-in" mechanisms which act when the environment changes will create this tremendous variation of forms we see in nature in thousands of years instead of the millions assumed in evolution.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The final piece of the puzzle is the confusion between the term translated in Genesis as "kind" and the more modern biological term known as "species".

First we note the definitions of "kind" and "species"

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary – Fifth Edition - 1947

KIND 2. A natural group, class or division; as the bird kind.

SPECIES 5. Biol. A category of classification ; a distinct kind or sort of animal or plant.

It appears that somewhere along the line the Hebrew word translated as "kind" in scripture was changed when modern biology came along into the term "species" which today is a much more detailed classification than the word "kind", as we saw in the example of "the bird kind".

And as theologians have noted since Augustine, there is such a great variety in nature that the creation account, and especially the Flood account, could not be referring to all the detailed varieties.

We also note that the modern definition of species is quite useful in biology to permit accurate communication in journals regarding the specific variety under discussion.

The conclusion can then be drawn that despite the dictionary biological definition of species, which mentions the word "kind", that the Hebrew word translated as "kind" in scripture is not the same classification.

The bottom line is that confusion in the definitions of words in scripture with how the words have been defined in the past thousand years has led to people like Darwin "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" by rejecting scripture on false grounds.

The Bible never teaches "fixity of species", and the Hebrew word translated as "kind" in scripture does not have the same meaning as the offhand mention of the word "kind" in the modern dictionary biological definition of the word "species".

It would be humorous to reflect on the confusion caused by word definitions which have changed over thousands of years of time, if it hadn't led to so many people ending up rejecting scripture on such obviously false grounds.
 

Sealeaf

New member
So Bob, you are suggesting that God only "specially created" one general pupose "hoofed vegetarian four footed animal that gives milk" and all cattle, goats, sheep, deer, antlelopes, bison etc are variations that just happened under different environments? I think you are in danger of being cut by Occam's razor.
 

Jukia

New member
bob b: what is your definition of spcial creation? What, if you know, is the fundy definition?
Best I can tell all this thread can be is an exercise in avoiding the issue. Fundy's believe that the earth, the entire universe was created in 6 literal days per Genesis. That is "special creation". It is also special nonsense.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So Bob, you are suggesting that God only "specially created" one general pupose "hoofed vegetarian four footed animal that gives milk" and all cattle, goats, sheep, deer, antlelopes, bison etc are variations that just happened under different environments? I think you are in danger of being cut by Occam's razor.

Neither scripture nor I made such a suggestion.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
bob b: what is your definition of spcial creation? What, if you know, is the fundy definition?
Best I can tell all this thread can be is an exercise in avoiding the issue. Fundy's believe that the earth, the entire universe was created in 6 literal days per Genesis. That is "special creation". It is also special nonsense.

Johnny pointed out the reason for the confusion: the modern definition of "special creation" seems to include the ancient Greek concept of "fixity of species".

Scripture does not teach "fixity of species" and creation scientists have generally rejected it as well.

The confusion arises when the Hebrew word translated as "kind" is equated with the modern biological term "species", so that it is not an unreasonable conclusion, based on this assumption, that "after their kind" implies "fixity of species."

My conclusion is that equating "kind" with the modern biological term "species" is a bad assumption and thus "fixity of species" is also.
 

Jukia

New member
Johnny pointed out the reason for the confusion: the modern definition of "special creation" seems to include the ancient Greek concept of "fixity of species".

Scripture does not teach "fixity of species" and creation scientists have generally rejected it as well.

The confusion arises when the Hebrew word translated as "kind" is equated with the modern biological term "species", so that it is not an unreasonable conclusion, based on this assumption, that "after their kind" implies "fixity of species."

My conclusion is that equating "kind" with the modern biological term "species" is a bad assumption and thus "fixity of species" is also.

And this is an answer to my question, how?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And this is an answer to my question, how?

You asked how I would define "special creation".

Under the circumstances I would avoid using the term, because biologists like Johnny have included the bogus addon of "fixity of species", and this means that valid communications will be garbled if "special creation" is used.

As far as "fundies" are concerned it is probably a mixed bag, and I have no idea how many include the bogus "fixity of species" and how many don't.

Your definition appears to omit the bogus "fixity of species".

Correct?
 
Top