Glenn Morton wrote on 25th July:
"I have waited three days to see if anyone was going to respond
to Nickolas Matzke's post. One of the most frustrating things
in the C/E debate on both sides is that when someone comes up
with a really good argument, the response by the other side is
silence... "
Sorry to be so slow Glenn! But there are so many issues to
respond to! I often start with the best of intentions of
responding - but then events overtake me and the issue gets
shelved.
GM: "If Dog-kind can have chromosome numbers from 36 to 78 and
Horse-kind can have chromosome numbers over a similar range, then
why can Human-kind not have a similar range of chromosome
numbers. (Apes 48 humans 46)."
Are we able to answer such "Why?" questions? Maybe, considering
only biological principles, there is no reason why there should
not be speciation events in humankind. But Humans are not just
biological entities. Perhaps that is why different races, but
not different species, are observed today. Perhaps it was right
to classify Neanderthal man as a sub-species of Homo sapiens, not
a separate species in its own right. Maybe the same should be
true for other species in the hominid line. I'm speculating
because I see no clear answers here.
GM: "I certainly would not argue that humans and apes are in the
same kind (in the sense of a baramin), but then I don't believe
that there ever was a baramin in the scriptures anyway.
I'm not sure if you have used the term "baramin" before in this
series of posts. I was going to put it to you that whilst the
biblical kind ("min") is non-technical, we do need a technical
term to convey the thought of a supernaturally created ancestral
form/basic type/category. Frank Marsh favoured "baramin" - and
I am willing to use this term. But I use it with the proviso
that "min" is non-technical. If you concur, then you will no
longer press the point that speciation events disprove the
biblical statements on "min" (assuming the term refers to
reproduction).
Now, to turn to Nick Matzke's post to Steve Jones:
>Questions for Steve, or any other interested parties:
> 1) Glenn's point is NOT valid because "kind" could actually
equal "order", correct?
This is what Steve suggested - although I have expressed the
issue differently. As indicated above, "kind" (min) is non-
technical and does not relate to any biological classification
term. However, IMO there is sufficient in the Bible to suggest that
ancestral populations of animals and plants were created
supernaturally and so there is value in describing them with a
technical term such as "baramin". Their identification must be
determined by research, not by reference to the Bible, and the
evidence points to unbridgeable gulfs existing at or near the
Family level of classification.
> 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?
If you replace "kind" by "baramin", the logic is 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?
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?
"As long as kind=order", your logic is 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 category 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).
Speaking for myself, I would say that the "baramin" (technical
term) does not equal order, but represents a lower grouping close
to the Family level. The rest of your (2) does not follow: it
is erroneous to say that there is "hard, verifiable, documented
evidence that in today's world, organisms do NOT always reproduce
according to their kinds". This goes back to using "kinds" in
a technical sense.
The lesson I believe we are to learn from the Copernican
revolution is not that the Bible has a "primitive, defective"
cosmology, nor that it is theological truth breathed through an
outdated perspective on the world, but that the Bible uses the
language of appearance in describing the Cosmos - a simple mode of
communication that conveys no error and remains timeless in its
effectiveness to reach the human mind. I am suggesting that the
principle applies in just the same way to the "kind" (min).
>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.
Rather than describe it as "an observational report of Middle
Eastern nomads", I would say this is God's revelation regarding
the origins of living things which Moses recorded for our
benefit. Apart from that, I see no more technical content in the
word "min" than Nick does.
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***