>I can't answer that, but it is worth mentioning a way to look at "after
>its kind" that I believe I saw (don't have it in front of me) in the
>interpretation chapter of van Till et al.'s _Portraits of Creation_. The
>suggestion was that this was not making a statement about fixity of
>species or other taxa (even leaving aside the silliness of identifying
>"kind" with any modern scientific taxonomic classification), but rather
>serving to emphasize the *orderliness* of God's creation. This was
>contrasted to some of the mythologies of nearby cultures in which there
>were all sorts of bizarre man/beast and beast/beast hybrids.
Allan's point here is excellent. We cannot properly interpret Gn 1 (or
almost any other part of biblical literature, for that matter) in ignorance
of the cultural context of the original audience and receipients. I think
greater attention to the theological polemic nature of Gn 1 would let us
avoid many of the silly controversies the church is engaged in these days.