'Kind' in Evolution and
It should be obvious that if
you do not agree on the definition of a word, you cannot use that word in any meaningful
In creationism the word ’Kind’
means ’The groups of animals created during the creation week’.
In evolution ’Kind’ has no specific definition. The word can be used as it
pleases the user.
However, not as in the creationist definition, as the
creation is not part of the theory of evolution.
This fact results in an often-heard
When a creationist wants a scientist to give an example of the
evolution of a new kind, it is actually a nonsense question. The creationist is
using a word that has a very specific definition under the assumption of
creation, but that definition makes no sense under the assumption of evolution. Still the creationist asks
the scientist to use the definition from creationism when answering the
The best way for the
scientist to respond would probably be to ask “How do you define ‘Kind’”.
It will then be clear that the creationist is in severe trouble.
He cannot use the creationist definition, as the scientist can simply dismiss it
as irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
But what other definition does a creationist have? He could come up with a few
examples: dogs and cats are different kinds - but according to evolution dogs didn’t decent from cats or
vice versa, so that doesn’t help much.
The only meaning the
question can have is something fluffy like ‘major anatomical transitions’. But
if these transitions are of the magnitude necessary to turn a dog into a cat,
or to produce a new organ, no scientist have ever postulated that this can
happen fast enough to be visible.