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’.
]]>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.)
]]>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.
]]>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.