On the discussion of biblical kinds, Steve Jones said:
"See above. They reproduced "NOT after their" *species*. Only if
"kind" = species is Glenn's point valid. If kind = order, then they
have "reproduced...after their kind"!"
Questions for Steve, or any other interested parties:
1) Glenn's point is NOT valid because "kind" could actually equal
"order", correct?
2) Therefore, the descent of one species from another could occur by
natural processes without violating the God's word that plants and
animals must reproduce after their kind. If kind=order, then
supernatural action would account for the origin of new orders/kinds,
and natural action (whether or not ultimately controlled by God) would
account for the origin of family, genus, and species. Correct?
3) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) belong to the Family Pongidae, and humans
(Homo sapiens) belong to the Family Hominidae. Both Pondigae and
Hominidae belong to the Order Primates. Correct?
4) Therefore, humans and chimps (as well as monkeys, gorillas, orangutans,
lemurs, and bush babies) belong to the same kind and humans could have
naturally developed from the same ancestors as chimps without requiring
supernatural intervention (as long as kind=order). Correct?
I have thought through this a couple of times, and the logic looks pretty solid
to me. It looks like a catch-22 for Steve and others with similar views:
Either:
1) you have to accept that it is possible that humans and chimps evolved from
the same ancestors by a natural process allowed within the catagory of biblical
kinds, OR
2) you have to say that, in fact, kind does NOT equal order and must equal a
lower grouping such as family, genus, or species, in which case there is hard,
verifiable, documented evidence that in today's world, organisms do NOT always
reproduce according to their kinds. This means that the Bible is, in this
case, incorrect (or more accurately, the common (and apparently textually
correct) interpretation of the meaning of this part of the creation story is
incorrect).
Take your pick. If you don't like either one, here's option three (my
favorite):
3) you have to admit (as has been asserted on this server) that the phrase that
plants and animals reproduced after their kinds reflects nothing more than an
observational report of Middle Eastern nomads 3-4,000 years ago, who saw little
change in the offspring of animals and plants within their period of
observation, which was probably about the same as their 35 year (or less)
average lifespan.
Enjoy,
Nick