The debate regarding evolution would benefit from a more precise definition of terms. For example, in this piece by Dr. Ken Hovind, he steps into the fray by clarifying a half-dozen ways “evolution” can be defined. Hovind proposes science supports only micro-evolution – variations within “kinds.”
Genesis 1:11-12 states: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Similar statements are recorded in verses 21-22: “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
And verses 24-25: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
The dearth of scientific evidence for a “missing link” – in which macro-evolution is observed – supports the potential for evolution of created life only within its kind.