Toward A Biblical-Based Taxonomy System
Semi-Technical
Bodie
Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, December 4, 2025 (Donate)
Part of the problem with the current classification systems like modern Linnean and Clades (cladistics) is the heavy influence of evolution and evolutionary relationships. It is assumed, on the secular side, that life evolved from a single-celled organism and this does not mesh with the biblical view. In the Bible, things are created after their kinds.
Classification Then And Now…Why?
In modern creationists’ studies, there is a field called baraminology that is working to find the boundaries of the created kinds (“baramins” from bara=created and min=kind). Although much has been done regarding hybridization data, much more still looms on the horizon. We wish to encourage this study. But in reality, researchers are still in their infancy on this huge subject.
From a big picture classification perspective, it boils down to a difference of how things are viewed and this is really the crux of the differences between the creation and evolution worldviews. When it we see similarities what does that mean? The two positions are:
1. Common features mean
common ancestry.
2. Common features mean common designer.
To understand classification a little better, it is good to go back to how the modern classification was first developed. Ancient peoples commonly classified creatures like plants and animals—that’s old news—but in the 1700s, it was done more methodically. And for the first time since the Ark, there was a goal to classify all animals (and plants) in the world (not just land dwelling, air-breathing animals that were on the Ark).
Swedish creationist Carl Linnaeus was founder of the modern classification system in the 1700s. Linnaeus original classification was:
|
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
|
Species |
This system was a good start but Linnaeus failed to get users to use the Bible as the absolute starting point for each classification. This opened a door. Linnaeus began classifying based on the Bible and even used two Latin terms for kind (species and genus) which are both used in the Latin Vulgate. His hope was that the kind would be in those places, but the way people classed things worldwide ended up with host of creatures [that could interbreed] but were already classified as a different genus or species. This pushes the majority of creatures to a family level for the kinds. So the two word in Latin for kind were usually not where the kind boundary was!
If we try to put the biblical kind on this classification, (or even the more recent one), in most cases, it would be closer to the family level but sometimes genus or even a species level. Currently, the secular side has added several new categories:
|
Domain |
|
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Subphylum |
|
Class |
|
Cohort |
|
Order |
|
Suborder |
|
Infraorder |
|
Superfamily |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
|
Species |
I suggest classification should be done as predicated on Scripture as the starting point. So, I would prefer the term kind or “created kind/baramin” as a standard in a biblical-based taxonomic system. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says of the word kind (min in Hebrew):
“Some have argued that when God created mîn, he thereby fixed the ‘species.’ This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word mîn with the biologist’s descriptive term species cannot be substantiated, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists.
In light of the distinctions made in #Ge 1, such as the distinction between herbs and grasses which are, however, members of the same class (Angiosperms), it is possible that in some cases the biblical term mîn may indicate a broader group, such as an order. Elsewhere, in #Le 11:14,15,16,19,22 (four times), #Le 11:29, mîn appears consistently as equivalent to nothing broader than genus. However, #Le 11:4 ‘the falcon after its kind,’ and #Le 11:16 ‘the hawk after its kind,’ refer to divisions within the order Falconiformes, yet both have subdivisions called mîn. Likewise, as Payne points out, the locust, bald locust, cricket, and grasshopper all belong to the order Orthoptera and the locust, bald locust, and grasshopper belong to the family Acridiidae, but again each has its subdivisions called mîn (genus?).
God created the basic forms of life called mîn which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes.”
This is a good reason to avoid limiting the biblical kind or baramin to modern classification systems. So, we really need to use kind in the context that it deserves—a biblical classification system.
Common Design Or Common Ancestry?
Common ancestry is at the root of the evolutionary model proposed by theologian Charles Darwin in his books The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection for the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. This view is what dominates classification today.
However, the Bible clearly discusses a Creator God, who created things according to their kinds, not by a single common ancestor. Obviously today though, we have creatures that came from ancestors but not a single ancestor. Dogs came from previous dogs, cats came from previous cats, etc.
In fact, people came from people and ultimately Adam, who came about by the dust of the ground, and the breath of God, not by an ape-like ancestor or ultimately a single-celled organism (Genesis 2:7). Being that God is the designer, then all of His designs come from the same designer and some similarities should exist—and being a perfect designer, one would expect to see some common optimal designs features, but also being in a sin-cursed world since, we should expect some designs that are no longer upheld perfectly due to mutations and other factors (e.g., Genesis 3).
Mankind, who was made in the image of God, reflects the character of God, in part anyway (because we are finite and in a cursed world). But when engineers use similar concepts when building machines, bridges and so on, then it should not be a far cry to assume that this reflection is merely in line with what God has already done: using similar designs.
The platypus is an excellent example of utilizing various features that we find on many different types of animals, a common designer made both the platypus as well as the other creatures it resembles. It would be a far cry to say the duck, duck-bill dinosaur and platypus all came from a common ancestor. Thus, neglecting that common design reflects a common designer is not a good assumption.
Furthermore, is the assumption that common design pointing toward common ancestry biblical? Within kinds, yes, but outside of kinds, no—and Genesis 1 refutes this idea. But consider also Leviticus 11:
13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination
among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle,
the vulture, the buzzard,
14 ‘the kite, and the falcon after its kind;
15 ‘every raven after its kind,
16 ‘the ostrich, the short–eared owl, the sea
gull, and the hawk after its kind;
17 ‘the little owl, the fisher owl, and the
screech owl;
18 ‘the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion
vulture;
19 ‘the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.[1]
Good science begins with good theology and careful analysis of the text of Scripture. The Bible gives us a great head start as to some of the various kinds like the dove and raven kind that were aboard the Ark. Although some argue about the specific creatures on a few of these above and presuming our translations are accurate enough, there is sufficient warrant that there are multiple vulture and owl kinds…and this is significant. Such creatures as the two vulture kinds have incredible similarities and yet the Bible calls them different kinds.
Even further, most of these listed are birds of prey with various commonalities (talons, sharp beaks, etc.) and yet such similarities do not make them the same kind. Thus, the argument that common design equals common ancestry is not good when looking in light of Scripture.
This is confirmed further in Leviticus 11:
20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours
shall be an abomination to you.
21 ‘Yet these you may eat of every flying insect
that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with
which to leap on the earth.
22 ‘These you may eat: the locust after its
kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the
grasshopper after its kind.
23 ‘But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.
Here we read of flying insects that walk on all fours with the hind jumping legs (think of something like a grasshopper, which is mentioned). These creatures all have these similarities and yet at least 4 different kinds are mentioned among them! So again, just because creatures have similarities, does not mean they are of the same kind. And Moses being responsible for both Leviticus and Genesis knew what he meant when he said kind (min) in both books.
Boundaries For “Kinds”…Reproduction?
Today, many creationists step back and make the point that the Bible doesn’t say “reproduce after their kinds”, which was a common statement for years. It is true that the Bible says things are created “after their kind” in Genesis 1. Often creationists say things were to “reproduce after their kinds” implying a boundary but the Bible doesn’t actually say it. Of course one can see where this derived since these creatures were told to reproduce and fill the earth and is reiterated during the time of the Flood.
However, the statement that reproduction may not be a basis for a boundary as previously thought may not be accurate. Many far-removed commentators (Jewish and Christian) took reproduction as the boundary. Consider for a moment:
|
Who |
What did they say? |
Reference |
Reproduction associated with kinds? |
|
Leupold |
“first, these fruit trees bear fruit "after their
kind," a peculiar and definite limitation, which all those understand
best who have seen how the "kind" sets limitations upon all who
would mix kinds and cross them.”
“The accomplishment of the things ordered in v. 11 is reported
in this verse in terms that are not a wooden repetition of v. 11; for after
"seed" is inserted "after their kind’" to emphasize how
the "kind" limitation also applies to the herbs, though this had
not been mentioned previously.”
“Another distinctive thought conveyed by this half of the verse
is the added assertion that these creatures appeared "after their
kind," a phrase not new but as important in its bearing as above. (v.
12) and allowing for no transmutation of species[2].”
“A double "after their kind," first applying to
"the living creatures" as a whole then to the three classes
separately, impresses this distinctive limitation upon all these creatures- a
truth amply confirmed as not to be eradicated, as all who have engaged in
crossbreeding of animals can abundantly testify.” |
Notes on Genesis1:11; 1:12; 1:21:1:24 |
Yes |
|
Gill |
“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:“ |
Notes on Genesis 1:22 |
Yes |
|
Josephus |
“And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both
those who swim, and those who fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the
air. He also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that
their kinds might increase and multiply.” |
Antiquities of the Jews-Book I, CHAPTER 1, 4004 BC—Creation of
the Universe—Institution of the Sabbath—Fall of Man |
Yes |
|
Calvin |
“If therefore we inquire, how it happens that the earth is
fruitful, that the germ is produced from the seed, that fruits come to
maturity, and their various kinds are annually reproduced”
“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?” |
Notes on Genesis 1:11; 1:24 |
Yes |
|
Clarke |
“Every thing both in the animal and vegetable world was made so
according to its kind, both in genus and species, as to produce its own kind
through endless generations.” |
Notes on Genesis 1:24 |
Yes |
|
|
“for the propagation of their several kinds” |
Notes on Genesis 1:11 |
Yes |
|
Basil the Great |
There is nothing truer than this, that either each plant had
seed or there exists in it some generative power…since the kinds persisted
through constant reproduction. |
Hexaemeron 5.2 |
Yes |
From Jews like Josephus 2000 years ago, to Basil the Great, a leading church father, to various commentaries, it seems that people recognized popularly that the boundary for a kind dealt with reproduction.
Leading Hebraist of the time, Dr. John Gill in his famous commentary for Baptists in the 1700s says in his notes on Genesis 1:22:
“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:“ (Emphasis added).
Dr. Gill points out that “after its kind” was not merely referring to its creation, but that it is modified by the following clause of being fruitful and multiplying. The concept of “reproducing after its kinds” is more of a derivation. It may not be the best to say that reproduction is not the biblical boundary. Most recognize that if things can breed together, then they are members of the same kind.
Naturally, with extinct creatures, this becomes rather difficult to test so other means would be necessary to see if various extinct creatures may belong to a particular kind. But even these results should be kept tentative because we cannot know for certain. But what does the Bible actually say about kinds and reproduction (including man)?
|
Said
of: |
Passage |
Reproduction
mentioned – Genesis 1? |
Reproduction
mentioned – Genesis 6-9? |
|
Vegetation |
Genesis
1:12 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[3]. |
Yes,
Seeds |
|
|
Sea
creatures |
Genesis
1:21-22 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." |
Yes,
Be fruitful and multiply |
|
|
Flying
creatures |
Genesis
1:21-22 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."
Genesis
8:17 "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with
you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so
that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the
earth." |
Yes,
Multiply |
Yes,
Be fruitful and multiply |
|
Land
animals (on |
Genesis
6:19-20 "And of every living
thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to
keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. "Of the
birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every
creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will
come to you to keep them alive.
Genesis
8:17 "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with
you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so
that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the
earth." |
. |
Yes,
A kind is referred with a male and its mate, giving reproductive status and
being told to be fruitful and multiply |
|
Man |
Genesis
1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the
ground."
Genesis
9:1 So God blessed Noah and his sons,
and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
Genesis
9:7 And as for you, be fruitful and
multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it." |
Yes,
Be fruitful and increase in number |
Yes,
Be fruitful and multiply |
These passages give a great support to reproduction (e.g., hybridization) being the ultimate boundary of a kind. Some things could have lost the ability to reproduce back with others of its kind. Think of a Shih-Tzu and Great Dane, where their size would inhibit any natural breeding. Of course, there are other reasons this can happen as well. For example, mutations could have caused them to lose this ability as well (in fact, I have friends, humans, who cannot reproduce but this does not make them any less human). So losing the ability to breed back is still acceptable within this hybridization model.
Toward A Biblical-Based Taxonomy System
The book of Genesis gives us the perfect foundation for classification beyond simply the kind (min). The Bible gives consistent data to develop a classification system from Moses through the rest of Scripture. Consider for a moment that Genesis’ discussion of Creation Week reveals the first major breakdown of creatures by the day they were created: Day 3, Day 5, and Day 6 (Genesis 1).
Genesis further reveals that there was vegetation on Day 3 (Genesis 1:11-13). Then, there are two broad overviews of classes (flying and sea creatures) on Day 5 (Genesis 1:20-23). Then on Day 6, there were categories like land animals and man who is classed uniquely (Genesis 1:24-31).
Further classifications of vegetation could be offspring-bearing plants verses offspring-bearing plants with fruit. On Day 5, sea creatures could be classed as living or moving and winged creatures could remain as flying creatures (the Bible gives no further breakdown here in Genesis 1). And so with Day 6, we get a further breakdown as creeping things, beasts of the earth, cattle/livestock, and mankind.
From here, we can add a couple of other classes depending on later classifications in Scripture or even use some of the terminology we use today. We could also have a class to distinguish if the creature has a soul or not (i.e. nephesh chayyah, the Hebrew for “living soul”). Plants for example were not called living creatures—hence they could not die in the biblical sense. This is different from dying in the biological sense.
Then, we arrive at the various kinds (baramins) and sub-classifications of kinds (sub-baramins) as diversity within the various kinds has transpired since the Flood based on variations that have appeared today.
Biblical Taxonomy In Chart Form
|
Biblical Based Classification |
|||||||||
|
Class 1 |
Day 3 |
Day 5
|
Day 6
|
||||||
|
Class 2 |
Vegetation |
Sea creatures |
Winged/Air |
Land creatures |
Land |
||||
|
Class 3 |
Offspring bearing plants |
Offspring bearing trees with fruit |
Living sea creatures |
Moving sea creatures |
Winged/flying creatures |
Creeping things |
Beasts of the earth |
Cattle |
man |
|
Class 4[4] |
Grasses, Pine trees, etc. |
|
Mammals, fish, sea dragons, etc. |
Sea insects, crustaceans, bacteria[5]
(associated with sea creatures/water) etc. |
Birds, bats, flying insects (bacteria associated with flying
creatures/air), winged creatures, etc. |
Land Insects, smaller lizards, serpents, (bacteria associated
with these), etc. |
Beasts of the field, dinosaurs, bears, squirrels, rabbits, (bacteria associated with these) etc. |
Cows, sheep/goats, hogs, (bacteria associated with these) etc. |
Man (bacteria associated with man) |
|
Class 5[6] |
Non-Living |
Non-Living |
Living |
Non-living |
Living |
Living |
Living |
Living |
Living/Image of God |
|
Kind (Original baramin) |
|||||||||
|
Sub-kind 1 (sub baramin
1) |
|||||||||
|
Sub-kind 2 (sub baramin 2) etc.[7] |
|||||||||
Using The Bible-Based Taxonomy
The system should be fairly straightforward to use. As an example let’s use two variants of the dove/pigeon kind: the mourning dove and the passenger pigeon.
Possible classification of the mourning dove by the Biblical-Based Taxonomy System:
Class 1: Day 5
Class 2: Winged/Air
Class 3: Winged/Flying creatures (Hebrew: owph)
Class 4: Bird
Class 5: Living
Kind: Dove kind (Hebrew: yownah)
Sub-kind 1: dove
Sub-kind 2: mourning dove
Others within the kind: passenger pigeon (now extinct), turtle dove, fantails, pouters, Jacobins, tumblers, homing pigeons, carrier pigeons
Possible classification of the passenger pigeon by the Biblical-Based Taxonomy System:
Class 1: Day 5
Class 2: Wing/Air
Class 3: Winged/Flying creatures (Hebrew: owph)
Class 4: Bird
Class 5: Living
Kind (baramin): Dove kind[8] (Hebrew: yownah)
Sub-kind 1: pigeon
Sub-kind 2: passenger pigeon
Others within the kind: mourning dove, turtle dove, fantails, pouters, Jacobins, tumblers, homing pigeons, carrier pigeons
Possible classification of a white squirrel by the Biblical-Based Taxonomy System:
Class 1: Day 6
Class 2: Land Creature
Class 3: Beast of the Earth
Class 4: Beast of the Field/Mammal
Class 5: Living
Kind (baramin): Sciuridae kind (Squirrel kind)
Sub-kind 1: sciurinae (tree squirrels)
Sub-kind 2: white squirrel
Others within the kind: red fox squirrels, eastern gray squirrels, black squirrels, etc.
Conclusion
This is but a taste of what a biblical-based taxonomy could look
like. And this is of-course not set in stone but first step into a larger world
of classification. Our hope is that creationists will take this lead as a
stepping stone and climb into the subject in great detail using the Bible as
the basis.
Perhaps in the future, creationists can reignite the flame for
classification in accordance with God’s Word and not be forced to use the one
now heavily tainted with evolutionary ideas.
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] A
similar listing can be found in Deuteronomy 14.
[2] Some
commentators use the word “species”, which was developed in the mid
1500s and meant “sort” or “kind” and Linnaeus also tried sticking with this
terminology but since then the term species has been redefined in
scientific terms over the years and no longer means “kind” as represented in
the Bible. Species still lacks a solid definition in today’s scientific
culture.
[3] All
passages are NASB or NKJV
[4] Since
all creatures are not mentioned in the Bible, then some of these will have to
be inserted the best we can.
[5] Note
that all things were originally perfect/very good (Deuteronomy 32:4/Genesis
1:31), so bacteria, fungi, etc. would have been purely beneficial and in
perfect symbiotic relationships when originally created.
[6]
“Non-living” would basically be things that have a body or structure. “Living”
would contain a body or structure and nephesh
chayyah or a living soul according to Scripture. Living/image of God
would contain a body, nephesh or
living soul as well as being made in the image of God or eternal spirit (1
Thessalonians 5:23). Though there are
places in Scripture where soul and spirit are interchanged, this is because
both are classed as non-physical but a spiritual aspect of being made in the
image of God is an added benefit like having something etched on the flip side
of this same coin, where living soul would have no etching on the other
side.
[7] Further
sub-baramin or sub-kinds could be inserted here. For example, there are various
types of pigeons and sub types of those.
[8] Keep in
mind that pigeons and doves are known to interbreed.
