Josiah

Hello everyone. I've been lurking around this board for a while, but this is my first contribution.

It seems to me that we ("evolutionists") don't hammer on the weaknesses of creationism enough in the debate. Too often the format goes something like this:

Scientist: Here's a lot of evidence for evolution.

Creationist: Evolution is absurd! Why do we have feet?

Scientist: Huh? How are feet a problem with evolution?

Creationist: This creationist with a PhD says so. Here's his argument.

And back and forth...

Creationists who criticize what they consider flaws in the theory of evolution are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. To start a discussion about just what creationism claims, I'm going to present the following challenge.

What, precisely, is a kind? What is its scientific definition, how do we know what kind something belongs to, how do we know two things are different kinds, and what would indicate that there was a change from one kind to another?

I hope that's a decent first post...

Quetzal

Josiah, Welcome! I'm glad you've decided to start posting.

However, you've picked the one impossible question to start with. Creationists don't have any answer. Period. The obvious reason, IMO, is that there ain't no such animal. Creationists don't seem to understand that that's the reason they can't identify a kind. It really gets squishly when they try and shoehorn their kinds onto the ark - unless the "kinds" are limited, they're stuck with the problem of explaining how a wooden boat held 13+ million species (two-by-two, unless it was seven). If they limit kind to a higher taxonomic level (everything from family to order to class once), to have few enough species to fit, then they have to explain the welter of biodiversity that has occured in the last 4000 years (microevolution within a kind - at the average rate of 3500 new species every year since the Flood !).

Can't be done.

They won't admit it. After all "goddidit".

inre: Feet. You been talking to Philip? A creationist podiatrist (allegedly) who claims feet are irreducibly complex and hence proof of the existence of gawd. I feel like asking if he ever saw jeebus in someone's toenail, but don't have the nerve.

Duvenoy

Howdy Josiah and Welcome!

Morpho's got it dead on. Try and pin a Creationist down on 'kinds' and, after a some verbal squirming, all you'll end up with is a lot of tarted-up dogma.

But that aside, It is a good kick-off post. I, for one, would like to see some well thought out arguments in a 'kinds' discussion. The way it stands now, Creationists seem to say it without thinking and we heathens heckle it. Not always of course, but often enough that the subject has taken on a ludicrous aspect that is hard to get around.

Again, Welcome!

doov

Josiah

Thank you.

I know. That was partly my intention... no matter how you slice it, this "kind" thing doesn't work.

Yes, this is one of the major problems. You know, I've even heard creationists say that "bacteria" could be a "kind" and that humans are their own "kind." So depending on how they want it to mean, it could be anything from kingdom to species!

You're kidding. I picked feet just because it sounded appropriately absurd. Lately, I've been having trouble telling the difference between satire and reality, and it's really starting to worry me. (How can he seriously say that FEET are... oh, he's a creationist. Never mind.)

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Josiah ]</p>

lpetrich

If you wish to find out what creationists consider a "created kind", you may want to do a web search for "baramin" and "baraminology" (from Hebrew words for "created" and "kind").

Reading some pages on that subject, however, reveals no reasonable criteria for telling what is and is not in some "created kind".

lpetrich

Claiming that "bacteria" are one "created kind" is almost too absurd to believe, because that is conceding that an enormous amount of evolution has taken place.

Also, many creationists use imprecise terminology like "dog kind" and "cat kind". And it's hard to find any justifications for these and other identifications anywhere in the creationist literature.

What does the "dog kind" include?

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)
With the gray wolf (Canis lupus lycaon)
With jackals and the coyote (genus Canis)
With various wild-dog, wolf, and fox species (family Canidae)
With weasels, badgers, wolverines, skunks, raccoons, bears, pinnipeds, etc. (suborder Caniformia)

Going any further would run into the "cat kind"; what would it include?

The domestic cat (Felis sylvestris catus)
With the wild cat (Felis sylvestris)
With other small felines (genus Felis)
With bigger felines (family Felidae)
With hyenas, mongooses, civets, etc. (suborder Feliformia)

Some additional ones:

A "bear kind", presumably Ursidae. Including oddball bears like the polar bear and the giant panda.

A "deer kind", presumably Cervidae. Deer, elk, moose, and the like -- complete with their variety of antler shapes.

A "cow kind". Does it include only the familiar domestic bovine Bos taurus, or also some related species, like the American buffalo/bison?

A "horse kind". Does it include only the domestic horse Equus caballus, or also donkeys and zebras?

A "dinosaur kind", complete with all their variety. It's not clear whether or not it includes birds; however, some creationists believe in the existence of a "finch kind" and a "parrot kind", which suggests that it does not.