Creationists: Serious inquiry, can you provide me a *concrete,* non-shifting definition of the word “kind”?
June 30, 2010 by
Filed under Concrete Bird Baths
I often hear how God created each “kind” of animal, or that Noah did not take every *specific* animal, but just a pair of each “kind.”
And I often hear about the acceptance of micro-evolution (“adaptation within its kind”), but not macro-evolution because one “kind” of animal cannot become another “kind” of animal.
However, Creationists often make it sound like any bird could micro-evolve any other bird because “birds” are a “kind” of animal. However, the same person will then fail to group all “mammals” as a “kind,” saying things like dogs can’t become cats (and monkeys can’t become people).
Sometimes (when convenient), “kind” seems to refer to entire taxonomic Classes of organisms. Other times, it is mysteriously restricted to taxonomic Families. Still other times, it seems to limit change to the Genus or Species level. But the difference is never explained.
So, can any creationist out there provide a clear, non-shifting, usable definition of the word “kind” that we could use in a serious debate about evolution? One that isn’t subjective and won’t change from discussion to discussion?
Thanks!
@gertystorrud:
“‘kind’=the specific, individual species. Period.”
So, Noah did take a pair of every *species* of animal on the ark, then?
Out of curiosity, does this include species like the various monotremes which only exist in Australia and never in the Middle East and, if a “kind” of animal all their own, could not have micro-evolved from any other “kind” of animal that would have been on the ark?
How did Noah get them? And how did he get them back to Australia (and only Australia) after the flood?
@ Israel Lover:
“A person is a kind, black or white does not matter.
A cat is a kind, Panther or house cat does not matter.”
This is EXACTLY what I am taking about. People are a species (Homo sapiens sapiens).
“Cats” are a Family (Felidae).
WHY does “kind” mean Species for humans and Family for cats? Why isn’t the “kind” for man Hominidae?
What is the *specific, distinguishing* thing that lumps ALL feline and feline-like things in a big pool, but specifically excludes humans from other related primates?
dogs are dogs.
cats are cats
birds are birds
AND THIS IS RELIG HERE SO NONE OF THIS MATTERS…HAVE YOU REPENTED???
‘kind’=the specific, individual species. Period.
It appears some of them can’t even tell the difference between definitions and examples.
Excellent question. The word’s definition shifts to suit the argument they are trying to counter. I stress “trying”.
the word kind is plural meaning one of a kind as in species such as one female and one male camel,dont you have a dictionary?
I heard they even had dinosaurs on the ark. (baby ones maybe)
A person is a kind, black or white does not matter.
A cat is a kind, Panther or house cat does not matter.
A dog is a kind, Poodle or Great Dane does not matter.
Bear is a kind, Polar bear or Grizzly bear does not matter.
This is a *concrete,* non-shifting definition of the word “kind”
Panthers and house cats are adaptations, they are still cats.
Poodles and Great Danes are adaptations, they are still dogs.
Polar bears and Grizzlies are adaptations, they are still bears.
I would suggest that if one wishes to use the term “kind” with respect to the Genesis creation account, one should start with the differentiations that the Genesis creation account makes: namely, between
1) birds (creatures of the air, with some caveats)
2) fish (creatures of the sea)
3) creeping things (insects, reptiles, rodentia, etc.)
4) beasts of the field (most larger land animals)
5) man
To actually carry on a real debate, aimed at reaching resolutions, one should start there. The creationist position is that transitions between these groups do not occur; and I know no creationist that believes otherwise.
Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EDIT: I realize that my reply does not give you the overall Hebrew usage of the term “kind,” and I apologize for this. The language resources on my computer are acting up at the moment.
My point is, nevertheless, that creationism (by virtue of its Biblical foundation) and its terms can and should be judged by the meanings the text itself gives. Any serious Hebrew grammar can give you the definitions you need. I would recommend TWOT (The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) or TDOT (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament). Both are well-respected works of critical scholarship, accepted by both theists and non-theists.
My understanding has been that the word “kind” refers to any animals that can breed and produce offspring. For example dogs are a “kind”, two very different breeds can mate and produce a mixed breed therefore they are of the same kind. Lions and tigers are of the same kind because they can mate and produce a liger. I could be wrong (and probably am) but this is how I understood the word “kind”.
It’s a fairly widespread convention to regard “kind” as equivalent to “genus.”
However, I cannot commit any creationists to that or any other non-shifting definition, because I am not one of them. I believe in Creation but not the “-ism.” I also accept the theory of evolution and can see no reason, other than putting one’s hands over one’s ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!”, that anyone presented with the evidence for evolution would deny it.
Since someone managed to post the assertion that this question is not relevant here, I’ll also mention that I see it as highly relevant to discussing the apparently fictional distinction creationists make between “macro-” and “micro-evolution.” Using the genus classification as a basis would mean they would accept the evolution of species from other species within the genus.
That would undoubtedly be comforting to those concerned about the relationship between H. sapiens and other species, but given the DNA evidence, the common descent of all known species on this planet appears to be proven by any reasonable standard. We’re not just distantly related to apes; we’re very distantly related to trees. (And mollusks, and protozoa, and–more distantly than any of the aforementioned–our own mitochondria.)
I’m afraid the best definition I’ve found is a bit circular.
Since the defining characteristic of a ‘kind’ is that no members of one kind can micro-evolve into members of any other ‘kind’, then that is a description of what a ‘kind’ is, of a sort. Currently interbreeding members are necessarily in a group, but also those that are very closely related. I’ve heard it suggested that it is most analogous to the ‘family’ level in biology.
I put a link below for more information. It’s unfortunately not too helpful… except in the suggestion that the primary difference is not assuming a shared ancestry. If they start at the species level and tie species with known, proven heritage together, presumably they get to a point where they have to stop and that’s the end of a ‘kind’.
I feel so left out. I am not a creationist but I had a
really pithy answer to this question. I strikies me as
unkind to discriminate against me because I don’t
accept creationism. This kind of answers the question,
doesn’t it?