Fixity of “Species”
(A definition
change…and a lesson from the past!)
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, July 21, 2025 (Donate)
If one were to ask around and see what kind of definitions
he would get for the word “species” or “genus”, most would respond by saying it
has something to do with classification.
In today’s society, the words genus
and species are synonymous with
the Linnaean taxonomy system.
In the early 1700s, if someone said something about a
“species” or “genus”, it had nothing to do with classification systems. So why is
this important today and what can we learn from it? The word species and
its changing definition were partly responsible for the compromise of the
church in late 1800s. Of which, the church today is still struggling over.
Let’s do a brief history review.
Species: Origin And Meaning
The English word species comes directly from Latin. The word
“species” in Latin is the word for “kind”.
For example in the Latin Vulgate (early Latin Bible translation) by
Jerome around 400 A.D., it says of Genesis 1:21:
“creavitque Deus cete grandia et
omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species
<04327> suas et omne volatile secundum genus <04327> suum
et vidit Deus quod esset bonum” (emphasis added)
Species is also found in Genesis 1:24 and 1:25 as well. The
Latin basically meant the biblical “kind”.
In fact, this word carried over into English and other languages that
have some Latin influence.
It means a “kind, form, or sort”. Another word that was
commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was “genus”. This is evident in Genesis 1:11, 12, and 21.
In both cases, these two words (species and genus) were used for
the Hebrew word “min” or kind. For
example, there is a dog kind, cat kind and so on. In
older terminology, it would have been the same thing as saying the dog
species or the cat species.
It made sense that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish Christian, began
using Latin terms for his new classification system. It was logical to use
these common terms, which was part of the commercial language throughout Europe
(much the way English is a seen as a universal language in the world today for
communication and so on).
Linnaeus even wrote his large treatise, Systema Natvrae, and other findings, in Latin in the mid to late
1700s. So again, this makes sense. Originally, Linnaeus had the name species in
mind to equate with the word kind. However, it didn’t work out that way as
history unfolds.
Early commentators recognized that species originally meant
the biblical kinds as even John
Calvin in the 1500s, leading reformer stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24:
“I say, moreover, it is sufficient
for the purpose of signifying the same thing, {1} that Moses declares
animals were created ‘according to their species:’ for this distribution
carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred, that the
offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species
exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied?”
Of course, Calvin originally wrote in Latin, but this early
English translation by Thomas Tymme in 1578 still shows the point that species
were the biblical kind. Calvin is even pointing out the stability or fixity of
species, i.e., biblical kinds.
Dr John Gill, about the same time as Linnaeus, equates
species and kinds in his note under Genesis 1:22 while saying:
“With a power to procreate their
kind, and continue their species, as it is interpreted in the next clause; saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill
the waters in the seas:”
Others such as St Basil, prior to the Latin Vulgate
discussed the species as the biblical kind in the 4th century in his
Homilies on Genesis 1. Matthew Henry in the late 1600s and early 1700s uses
species as kinds in his notes on Genesis 2:3, saying there would be no new
“species” created after creation week had completed. The list could
continue. The point is that species
originally meant a biblical kind.
A Change
After Linnaeus, both of these words (species and genus) were
commonly used in modern biological classification systems with slightly
different definitions. In the mid-to-late 1700s, “species” began taking on a
new more specific definition in scientific circles as biological terms (that
definition is still being debated even today).
But by and large the definition has changed and was not what
Linnaeus originally intended. For example, instead of there being a dog species
(or dog kind), there were now a few dog species.
However, in the lay and church sense, the word “species” was
still viewed as the biblical “kind”. So now we have people using two different definitions—the
classical definition and a new scientific definition.
But as the scientific term gained in popularity, this led to
a problem. When theologians and church members said “fixity of species”
(meaning fixity of kinds) people readily saw that there were variations among
the species (by the new definition). So, they thought “but species do change”!
Of course, no one ever showed something like a dog changing
into something like a cat. Dogs were still dogs; cats were still cats and so
on.
However, a bait and switch had taken place. Christians were
teaching fixity of species but the definition of species changed out from under
them. Thus, Christians looked bad, when people began observing that species [by
the new definition] were changing.
Of course, in reality, this was merely variation within the
kinds. For example, we find many variations of dogs (wolves, coyotes, foxes,
etc.), but they are all the same kind (or “species” by the old
definition).
Original definition of species; Image modified from
Presentation Library
New definition of species; Image modified from Presentation
Library
But as the church taught fixity of species, people, thinking
with the new definition, began seeing that animals like dogs, could undergo
selective breeding to arrive at something different—still a dog but doesn’t
look like other “species” (by the new definition) of dog—think “Chihuahua” or “Red
Wolf”!
Perhaps the most influential critique of fixity of species
came from Charles Darwin, whose book On
the Origin of Species…, tackled the misunderstood idea of fixity of species
(though it never used the term “fixity”). Mr. Darwin studied many creatures on
his travels and realizes there was variation and not fixity of species (by the
new definition).
The Implications
The results of this were devastating to the church. And
people began doubting the Word of God as a result and walking away from
Christianity and embracing an evolutionary philosophy. George Bentham writing May
30th, 1882 to Francis Darwin regarding his father Charles’ ideas said:
“I have been throughout one of his
most sincere admirers, and fully adopted his theories and conclusions,
notwithstanding the severe pain and disappointment they at first occasioned me.
On the day that his celebrated paper was read at the Linnean Society, July 1st,
1858, a long paper of mine had been set down for reading, in which, in
commenting on the British Flora, I had collected a number of observations and
facts illustrating what I then believed to be a fixity in species, however
difficult it might be to assign their limits, and showing a tendency of
abnormal forms produced by cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those
original limits when left to themselves. Most fortunately my paper had to give
way to Mr. Darwin's and when once that was read, I felt bound to defer mine for
reconsideration; I began to entertain doubts on the subject, and on the
appearance of the 'Origin of Species,' I was forced, however reluctantly, to
give up my long-cherished convictions, the results of much labour and study,
and I cancelled all that part of my paper which urged original fixity, and
published only portions of the remainder in another form, chiefly in the
'Natural History Review.'”
How sad that a misconception led to such rejection. Even
today a commonly leveled objection to the Bible is the claim that “species are
fixed”.
A good response, is “by what definition of species are you
referring”, because by the old definition, creationists would agree but would
probably better state it in modern English as fixity of kinds, so as not to
confuse the issue. But good points can be made to supports this such as: one
has never seen something like a salmon turn into a shark or a giraffe into an
elephant have they?
After Darwin’s books, many churches gave up fixity of
species (by either definition) and began taking compromised positions such as
theistic evolution (basically giving up Genesis for molecules-to-man evolution
and then picking up with Abraham). Realizing that the church had been baited
and switched with a new definition provides a valuable learning tool. When
people fail to understand the history, they often repeat it.
Changing Definitions Today: Science And Conception
We need to be on the lookout for changing definitions and
think biblically about such things. Some come to mind, namely the word
“science”, which has taken on a new meaning in recent years.
It used to mean “knowledge” and often by systematic means
(observe, hypothesize, predict, test, repetition) but now the definition has
added the religion of “naturalism”, specifically stating: “Such activities
restricted to a class of natural phenomena”.[1] So
one may be speaking about good science one moment, then switch to referring to
evolution, which is built in on naturalism, the next.
For example, you may have heard someone say (regarding the
creation evolution debate) that it is “religion versus science”. In this
instance, science is referring to the religion
of naturalism and its subset evolution. So, it is really religion versus
religion but many fail to understand that the definition of science has been
changed from under them. So many are duped into thinking that one is referring
to good repeatable science when they are really speaking of a religion. Even
the word story has a new definition.
Another scientific example of a changing definition today is
the word “conception”. It was, and to
most people today, is the point when the sperm and egg combine, or
fertilization. However unlike previous
versions, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, redefined conception as implantation
of the combined sperm and egg [that must be over 4-5 days old (blastocyte)]
when it attaches to the lining of the uterus (endometrium).[2]
This opened the door to people aborting children with
“morning after pills”, cloning research on humans, or embryonic stem cell research
while openly stating that is it “before conception”, so most people don’t
realize that they are dealing with the death of children—this is because most
people are still thinking in terms of the old definition.
Such atrocities in today’s society are “right under our
nose” and should be a wake-up call for Christians. In today’s society, as
Christians, we must be aware of
changing definitions—whether species, conception, science, story or any other
word—and their implications, if we are to be effective in this culture.
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist
since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website.
He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker,
writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers
News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in
2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a
501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in
churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.
Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished
by permission.
[1] Compare Webster’s 1828 dictionary entry for “science” [http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,science] to modern definitions at thefreedictionary.com: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science.[2] Compare definition in Stedman’s Medical Dictionary entries for “conception” in the 26th edition and the 27th edition.
