Sorry this response is delayed - but the subject matter does warrant
it. Taxonomy provides us with a way of classifying living things.
It would be quite wrong to include "kind" in that taxonomy, but also
quite wrong to say that "kind" has no meaning!
The best overview statement I know comes from Sigfried Scherer: "The
basic types of life". This is in the anthology "Typen des Lebens"
edited by Sigfried Scherer and published by Pascal Verlag, Berlin.
This essay critiques current classification approaches, and shows
that a more objective category (the Basic Type) can be related to
the current subjective categories. The Basic Type conveys my concept
of the created "kind".
> Or is it simply another synonym for "species",
> for which Darwin also used synonyms, e.g. "race"? If I recall my early
> Genesis correctly, "kind" is a function of reproduction. What do
> theologians say about the relationship between Biblical "kinds" and scientific
> "species"?
"kind" cannot be a synonym for "species" - because the technical
language associated with "species" was absent from the Hebrew
language. Studies of the Levitical clean and unclean animals suggest
a much broader meaning than "species".
> ... Or are there cases where evolution supposedly
> crossed the taxonomic boundaries of genus or even family?
One of the strengths of "Basic Type biology" is that it takes
hybridisation data as DATA. It conveys information about
relationships. The studies that have been done indicate that
inter-generic crosses are not uncommon, and that inter-family
crosses do not occur. Because of the fuzziness of taxonomy, there
may be a few exceptions to this. Creationists refer to this
speciation as "variation within the created kind", and do not regard
it as supportive of evolutionary theory.
It is important to note that creationists are not consistent about
this. There are still some that resist the idea of speciation -
without biblical or scientific warrant. It is also important to note
that evolutionists have tended to create a straw man here - perhaps
drawing from Darwin himself. Darwin regarded all variation as
supportive of his theory and inconsistent with creation. Yet there
were creationists (Carl Linnaeus) who came to the position that
speciation was possible after creation.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.