Why must we Define a "Kind"?

As the question of what a "kind" is has come up more than once recently, I thought I would mention why its important, for creationists to define a kind.

Creation is called science by some, and some want it to be taught in school along side evolution. However, it cant be science until things like "kind" are defined. An important aspect in science is the ability for something to be falsified. For something to be falsified, we must first define it. Defining the terms that one uses to label something, is an important aspect in science, and creation wont be thought of as science until it defines its terms.
(one thing to note, "to be falsified" doesnt mean that its automatically wrong, just that it is possible to falsify it. Evolution can be falsified, it hasnt happend yet, but the possibility is there.)

This is why its important for "kind" to be defined, as without it, creationism cant be considered science.

More broadly, there are quite a few things creationists need to do if they are serious in creationism being a science.
One would be to define "kind"
Another would be to create a unified flood Model. A flood model that does all thats its supposed to without contradicting itself.

If creationists want their views to be considered science, then they must start treating them like science.

Just some tired thoughts.

-Ari

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Eh. I've seen this too many times now.

I think we poor, uninformed evolutionists need to clarify our desires here. "Kind" has a very simple definition: A group of creatures descended from a single entity created by God. THAT is obvious, and that's not what we want.

We don't need 'kind' to be defined. We need to define a specific kind. We need some creationists to step forward, and give us a definative explanation of a single 'kind,' and exacting procedures for how to determine whether a certain creature fits into that 'kind.' A clear, functional definition of a specific 'kind,' whether it be horse kind, bear kind, dog kind, or any other kind.

From that, I believe, we can actually accomplish something.

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

I agree that this is an issue that needs more attention. When we look at the details we do not find separate groups of species that are related by decent from a common ancestor, and have no relation to other such groups. This is the problem with YEC. Let me use the Bear as an example.
1. Bear species are related to each other by decent from a common ancestor due to obvious similarities: black bears, pandas, etc. Therefore, bears are all related by common decent.
2. Bears are related to extinct species found in the fossil record, some of which are the "bear-dogs" which feature canine dentation/ jaws and a bear-like body. Therefore, bears and dogs are related by common decent.
3. Bears and dogs have many similarities to other placental carnivores such as cats... eat meat, have claws, dentation etc. Therefore, mammalian carnivores are all related by common decent.
4. Placental carnivores have much in common with other placental mammals ( all have a placenta, etc) and therefore all placental mammals are related by common decent.
5. Placental mammals have much incommon with primitive mammals (marsupials, etc), such as having hair, and producing milk for their young, etc. Therefore, all mammals are related by common decent.
6. Mammals have many similarities in skeletal structure to the extinct mammal-like reptiles (therapsids) which in turn have similarities to reptiles. Therefore, mammals and reptiles are related by common decent.
7. Mammals and reptiles have similarities to other vertebrates such as amphibians and fish.. ie they all have a backbone, etc. therefore, all vertebrates are related by common decent.

I could go on from here in include all life. This is a simplification of the evidence, but my point is this... where do you draw the lines for the separate "kinds"??? This is not a word game, this represents what I believe to be a fundamental flaw in the YEC model. If life on earth can be shown to be cateogorized into distinct kinds unrelated to each other, this would be a serious challenge to Neo-Darwin evolutionary theory. Otherwise, it is not.

__________________
"Descended from apes! My dear, let us hope it is not so; but if it is, let us hope that it does not become generally known."- Wife of the Bishop of Worcester

The temptation is almost too great...


almost

5th April 2003 at 03:38 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #4

The temptation is almost too great...


almost

Good thing you resisted. Saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

FoC, as several of us pointed out, if you are going to claim that "kinds" are separate from all other "kinds", then that means that kinds become easy to classify. After all, you can easily point to sedans as separate from trucks. Or hammers from screwdrivers.

IF your theory is correct, then you should be able to unambiguously identify these clear divisions of life.  That you can't falsifies your theory.

I'll note that species is different.  IF evolution is correct, then any definition of species is going to have gray areas where we can't tell if the population is still one or is now two species.  And that ambiguity is exactly what happens.