Kind. It's a word often used by creationists. But what does it mean?
The term is central to understanding the young earth creationist's take on the deluge. Without knowing what a "
kind" is "Take with you seven of every
kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every
kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every
kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various
kinds alive throughout the earth." - Genesis 7:2-3
Without knowing what a
kind means, we cannot know what Noah loaded onto the ark. Creationists love to claim that evolution is wrong since one
kind has never been observed to evolve into another
kind. Well, if we don't know what
kinds are, how can we know if this ever happened?
So what explanations have I gotten from creationists as to what a
kind is?
1) It's so simple even a child could understand it, so I don't need to explain it. (A favorite of the currently incarcerated "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind)
2) Dogs are a
kind, horses are a
kind. (Also a favorite of the good "doctor.")
3)
Kinds are what were on the ark. (Circular reasoning, anyone?)
4)
Kinds are those that can reproduce more of their own
kind. (Finally, an actual explanation. There are problems with this, which I'll get to later.)
5) (Yes, often I am met with silence.)
Only answer (4) is a definition, but it looks an awful lot like the definition for a species.
Species: The members of a group of populations that interbreed under natural conditions and are capable of producing fertile offspring.
Kind cannot mean species for two reasons:
1) It has been scientifically proven that an ark of the size described in the bible could, in no way, hold two of every species that walks (or walked, in the case of dinosaurs and mammoths) on the land. It is simply impossible. When this is pointed out to proponents of definition (4), they suggest that
kind might mean genus, family, or even order. To put this in perspective, the order Carnivora includes dogs, bears, cats, weasels, and seals. The order Primates includes lemurs, monkeys, apes, and yes, humans.
Conservative estimates suggest that the ark could hold about 10,000 pairs of animals, while
there are currently estimates between 3,000,000 and 30,000,000 species of animals (for math simplicity, we'll assume 1,600,000). This means that a speciation event must have occurred every 1.6 days for the past 4400 years since the flood. This is a rate of evolution orders of magnitude beyond what all available data agrees is possible.
That's right, some creationists don't believe in the theory of evolution, claiming that such changes cannot occur over millions of years, but have no problem believing in the completely unsupported idea of SUPER EVOLUTION.
And all this happened somehow without any increase in information or beneficial mutations.
2) Another reason
kind cannot mean "species" is because there have been
over a dozen documented cases of speciation in the past century, in the field and in the lab. And since according to creationists, one
kind has never been observed to evolve into another
kind,
kind cannot mean species.
This is why
kind is not a scientific term. Its meaning is subjective.
So what do creationists mean by the word
kind? If they mean species we know it is impossible to literally interpret the story of Noah's Ark. Also, there are many examples of a population of one species splitting off and evolving into a completely separate species.
If they mean some categorization higher than species (i.e. genus, family, or order) the animals may fit on the ark, but one must now accept the completely unscientific, unsupported, and undocumented idea of SUPER EVOLUTION.
So next time a creationist uses the word
kind when discussing this with you, bring this up. Most likely, they already know most of it, they're just hoping you don't. Ask them to define the term
kind and we'll discuss it.
Comments (55)
Those who beg to differ, I don't know why.
In Spanish 'kind' is 'tipo'... Which means type.
Like type of species and such.
I never knew such debates arised from a word that has many deriatives in other languages.
I don't think that made sense.
Man oh man. I used to believe wholeheartedly in the Noah's ark story. I pulled that off by not thinking about it too hard.
I'd much like to see a blog stating and supporting your own position, as opposed to focusing entirely on arguing with others'. I also don't see how the "unscientific, unsupported, and undocumented idea of SUPER EVOLUTION" is somewhow supposed to be an obstacle after already accepting the rest of the account of the great flood.
I mean, who's really going to say, "Well, I can totally believe that God created the universe out of nothing, began all life, and I can totaly beleive that He flooded the entire earth to rid the planet of sinful mankind except for one family and the animals on his ark, but I just can't accept the fact that God would be able to create diversity in species afterwards." Surely you can see that that would be silly. If you're going to accept the premise (of the omnipotent God orchestrated the flood) then the implications of that accepted premise must be carried out in full - you can't stop halfway and declare certain aspects to be impossible.
Edit: To clarify, this is nothing new. Obviously every species wouldn't fit on the ark. Since that's the case, if the ark is an accepted premise, then the implication is that God had a hand in diversifying the species afterwards. I don't see why this is an argument against Creationism at all.
@ElijahDH - I should have said it's an argument against "Scientific Creationism," as argued in the book I have posted above, where Woodmorappe tries to argue that the entire Noah's Ark story is scientifically feasible, all to get it into our classrooms.
@GodlessLiberal - Well, it is scientifically feasable, considering that the entire story is based on the interaction between God and His creation. Science is only able to observe the physical aspects. In a story where physical and non-physical interact, lack of purely scientific explanation is to be expected. Like I said, either accept the premise or don't - but if you do, accept its full implications as well. I haven't read the book in question, so I don't know if it has made any errors, but I'm just talking about the basic logical inconsistency in your arguments against it. If the story is to be accepted for scientific inspection, then it should scientifically be accepted that there will be scientifcally unprovable aspects of it.
@GodlessLiberal - OK, after reading this review of the book, I can see why you may have problems with it. Although there may be logicistical complications, I still believe that a large number of the popular citicisms (like, "How did Noah train all the animals?") only surface when the fact that God was directly involved is forgotten (like the fact that all the animals showed up on their own, obviously influenced by God). :]
Me thinks some try to hard to prove that which can not be proved. The idea that ether every kind of animal could have fit in the ark. Or that there could have been such massive evolutionary changes so vast afterwards, is all so silly. Ether call it a miracle or call it a misunderstanding of what is meant by the word world. "Known world" maybe, ether way some things can not be proved. So to fight so hard for it, only makes the good arguments look bad.
And it's such a little word...
I didn't think there could be controversy over such a small thing.
Sometimes i think, if viewed as a metaphor, I could believe the garden of eden creation story, but the noah's ark thing....nothing can make me believe that.
@ElijahDH - God could have just teleported all the animals into the ark.
@lalalandsucks4ever - He could also make entire planets made of Jell-O. I don't see the point in discussing the infinite number of things God could do but doesn't. Only the things He does do are relevant.
Genesis 1
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
They can breed within or be produced by like kind and not out side of their own Kind . Each original created kind was made with a wealth of genetic diversity with the potential to bring about the variety of breeds that we have record of within their own kind.
For better example of circle reason try dating fossiles by the age of the layer of rock it is found and date the rock layer by the fossile found in it. Even 8 year old kids ask about that one .
Barry
@ElijahDH - That's right the root dog kind and cattle kind and the other root kinds would number far fewer than what most people think.
Barry
@Barrygw - You still didn't define what a "kind" is. Or how there would need to be a speciation event every single day since the flood.
And how does a single or pair of individuals contain a "wealth of genetic diversity"? I'm a biology person, and I don't see how that's physically possible.
If you want to understand dating rocks and fossils, my friend wrote a wonderful blog explaining it all.
@GodlessLiberal - [And how does a single or pair of individuals contain a "wealth of genetic diversity"? I'm a biology person, and I don't see how that's physically possible.]
This is another problem with the "kind" argument that creationists never provide any evidence for whatsoever, but they constantly cite it to substantiate their literal, Biblical worldview. Every respectable biologist knows that this is utterly untenable position that is easily rejected by the available fossil evidence and introductory level genetics, and we need to start calling them out on it more forcefully. If there is no evidence for a scientific argument (in this case, the genetics and inheritance behind YEC-like theories), then their position likely isn't very academically honest, scientific, or probable (remember, they argue that these theories are scientific, which leaves them open to purely scientific criticisms). Not only are creationists incapable of overcoming the genetic problems associated with inbreeding in their model, but they simply lack the genetic diversity and sexual reproduction mechanisms necessary for the animals to reproduce at the rates we see on Earth today (and keep in mind that these rates would have to be exponentially greater than they have ever been in recorded history just for their model to be feasible). Saying "God can do anything" is a poor argument.
Another related issue is whether or not there is any evidence for us to believe that God did, indeed, act as creationists (nearly all over whom are Christian) claim he would have needed to in order for their theories to be correct. Not only is there often no scientific evidence for most of their claims, but there is often no biblical evidence for many of their claims either. They are completely pulling a lot of this spurious nonsense out of their hats and being indignant when it's not taken seriously by scientists. It's ridiculous.
@ModernBunny - R'Amen to that! I sometimes still shake my head at the things I believed by not thinking about it.
@ElijahDH - Are you one of those people that believe that the Christian god covered the earth in a flood that covered mountains; one of those people that believe that the Christian god enjoys joking around with persons' lives; one of those people that believe the Christian god will show a person to do what he says by having them be swallowed by a fish?
@lalalandsucks4ever - Your links: I don't see how the first one is relevant; the second is broken; the third is also not relevant.
To answer your questions - 1) Yes, the Biblical account is true: 20 ft over the mountains, 40 days+nights of rain, & total water coverage of the earth for 150 days. 2) I don't know what you're actually trying to refer to, but no, He doesn't just "joke around" with people's lives for no reason. 3) God told Jonah to go preach to Nineveh so that their entire city would repent and not be condemned and destroyed. He spent three days in the fish because he disobeyed God and wanted the entire city to die and go to hell. Wanting an entire city to go to hell is pretty extreme, so I'd say he had it coming, woudn't you?
Anyway, are you going to contribute to the conversation or just poke fun because I'm "one of those people" you don't like?
@ElijahDH - aw the second link was the best: angel version ashton kutcher telling Abraham he's been punked before Abraham is about to kill his son.
@ElijahDH - how old do you think the earth and universe are?
@ElijahDH - I'm just trying to clarify, you believe that these things I'm arguing against were done with miracles? Not criticizing, just wondering. Like I said, my problem is with people like Henry Morris and John Woodmorappe who try and make it a "science" (i.e. without miracles) that should be taught in our classrooms.
@GodlessLiberal - Yeah, people seem to frequently forget that a fundamental tenet of the creationism is that creationism is a scientific theory that is better supported by the available scientific evidence than neo-Darwinian evolution. In many of the prominent court cases involving creationism, the creationists haven't openly advocated the use of miracles to explain the history of Earth or the history of biodiversity on Earth; instead, they argue that a proper interpretation of the scientific evidence reveals that only the miracles described in the Bible (and miracles they have fabricated outside the Bible) could explain the fossil record, evolutionary genetics, etc. It's more of a purposefully flawed reductivist reasoning that leads them to conclude miracles are historically necessary, rather than a valid scientific inquiry and scientific investigation of the evidence. Of course, this position is easily proven to be nonsensical, but that's why it's entirely logically acceptable for people to criticize creationists and their theories for not only being inadequate scientifically, but also intellectually dishonest for pushing their theories as if they are scientific theories.
@lalalandsucks4ever - Well, by using the genealogy lists throughout scripture, a rough estimate can be made as to how old the Earth is. This chart, for example, show the timelines of the lives of the major people in Genesis. (I apologize for the size, but that's as large as xanga would let me upload it. At any rate, the names are visible, as is the change in life span after the flood, from the resulting atmospheric changes.) The rest of scripture has also been thoroughly examined and calculated as well, verifying against other historical documents, and it has been estimated that the earth has been around roughly 6,000 - 8,000 years.
Do I think that the universe itself (ie: space and time) are measurably less than 8,000 years old? No. Why? Because God exists outside of time - He would have made our universe in state which is already much older, in order for it to be stable enough to support life. Think of it this way: Assume God exists, that he exists outside of time, and has the power to create universes. Hypothetically, if he were to create a 2nd universe today, He could give it any age He wanted - He could even make it older than out present universe (as measured by it's inhabitants). The paradox is that a universe which did not exist yesterday would be measurably older than our present universe. This is why the issue of physical and nonphysical interaction will never yield 100% scientificaly verifiable results.
I'm well aware that measurement's of the universe's slowing expansion have been used to try to pinpoint the Big Bang, and that that event is theorized to have taken place much longer ago than merely 8,000 years. But if God is capable of creating time itself, and is capable of creating an entire universe, then He's more than capable of setting it up in such a way that all our measurements from within would refelct, well, exactly what they do currently reflect. Personally, I think God may have actually used the Big Bang as the mechanism by which he put everything into place, though it would have had to happen "faster" then most theories pose. I put "faster" in quotes because time itself was warped in the process. If all of the univese existed in a single, nondimensional point in one instant, and then space and time were stretched to resemble our current universe at the same moment that stars and planets were formed, that would account for light having traveled farther distances than would be possible in a "young" universe. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I wanted to demostrate that this isn't simply a case of the "blind faith" that so many atheist enjoy mocking. There is much to support a young earth and a quickly-aged universe via Big Bang.
@GodlessLiberal - Yes, as I'm sure my previous post clarifies, I do believe that miracles play a major part. :-]
@UTRow1 - I actually agree with your assessment, there. Much of modern Evangelism has overcompensated in reaction to the post-modern movement and has started pretending that we have every detail of every issue completely figured out - which is quite obviously not true, otherwise we wouldn't be losing debates all the time :-} Seriously though, there's much that we simply won't know until we're dead and can ask God directly. That's just how it is. I admit that there isn't irrefutable conclusive evidence of Creationism as a completely scientifically viable theory (for the reasons explained above), but I do still contend that there is much more evidence for it than most Evolutionists will ever admit to.
@ElijahDH - Even if you say "God is outside of time" that does not mean that the Christian god would be unaware of the time that we would believe had passed since the Big Bang or since the the formation of Earth. The Christian god being aware of how big of a deal the age of the universe would be to creationists and evolutionists concerning the accuracy of the Bible could have made a 6000 year old earth much more obvious. Instead, God has even the Geological Society confused.
GodlessLiberal, I just wanted you to know that your picture of the ark in your post is irrelevant - it has no dinosaurs.
*alluding to the use of the word irrelevant elsewhere*