Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
There are different defintions, none of which are perfect, clear, testable, agreed upon and applicable to all situations and lifeforms.
For that reason I find it rather unfair to ask creationists (which I am not) to come up with a single definition that doesn't have a biological-evolutionary equivalent.
Just like Phoenix said, there is a distinct difference in the way scientists and creationists use species and kinds.
Scientists acknowledge that species change. Therefore, when dealing with different types of organisms, especially those that reproduce and change quickly like bacteria, the lines can and often do quickly become blurred. It is required to have a couple of different working definitions that are applicible to different types of circumstances.
Creationists say that one "kind" can never become another "kind". That means that there should be a clear definition of one makes one kind different from another. Furthermore, there is no creationist structure that takes into account all life on earth and puts them within a framework.
Scientists have an entire taxomonic structure to show the relationships between species, and this structure is always growing. Species can become a genus, a genus can become a family, etc. The differences are rather large.
I suppose it comes down to what level of biology you are talking about. I doubt creationists really care about whether or not the lines blur with bacteria... you could lump them together as one kind by shape even.
I suppose you could define 'kind' by the neo-platonic view of living things... which is what creationism partially stems from anyways.
Kind is equivalent to the word Genus that's used today.
The level of Genus is still somewhat arbitrary. For all intents and purposes, there is no reason that chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans should not be in the same genus. If humans were in the same genus with apes, would you consider us the same kind?
When you go back to Genesis chapter 1 it truly makes it clear. There is only 3 times that God Created in Genesis 1, verse 1,21 and 27. When the term Bara (Created) is used it implies Divine Intervention. In verse 20 and 21 the Word says:
20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of Heaven.
21 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.
Here we see God Created a different Genus from the life that the waters brought foth abundantly. This is an act of Divine Intervention that is called the Cambrian Explosion.
There were no birds or whales during the cambrian explosion. In fact, I don't think there were any organisms with a bony skeleton. As far as I can see, there is not one verse in the Genesis account that correlates with the life found in the sedimentary layers making up the Cambrian Explosion.
[qutoe]So we see life coming forth from the waters and God gave that life genetic instructions to bring forth different species.[/quote]
And could those instruction be to randomly mutate, given that natural selection will guide adaptation and speciation?
ThePhoenix, I did indeed read what you posted. I've certainly dealt with the definitions of what a species is, I've learned it, discussed it, been tested on it, asked to apply it, et cetera. I'm a senior studying cell biology... so not only do I know the definitions, but the microbiology part of my studies shows me that there is not a "clear and testable definition of what a 'species' is that is agreed upon by the scientific community."
There are different defintions, none of which are perfect, clear, testable, agreed upon and applicable to all situations and lifeforms.
For that reason I find it rather unfair to ask creationists (which I am not) to come up with a single definition that doesn't have a biological-evolutionary equivalent.
Ok, I'm sorry for overreacting, but I once posted a dead link by accident in a thread, and about six people responded that my link was absolute garbage and the site was biased (it was not a famous site) before someone pointed out that it was deader then a doornail. So I tend to get a little suspicious. Anyway, the point is that creationists make a direct, testable claim that kinds do not change, and then move the goalposts on what a kind is. No biologist makes direct testable claims about species without mentioning how he is using the word species.
Linear Mode
