Re: PC 3.2.D.1 Kinds (was Question: Intelligent Design and "kinds" in the Bible)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 18:25:37 -0000, Edward T. Babinski wrote:
EB>If you are an I.D.er (What is the proper shorthand for "Intelligent
>Design advocate?" I.D.er, or maybe I.D.ist?)
As Andreas correctly pointed out, "IDer" is an abbreviation of Intelligent
Designer, so the correct abbreviation of "Intelligent Design advocate"
is "IDist", for Intelligent Designist.
EB>and IF your particular
>hypothesis of I.D. is based are a belief that the Designer
>miraculously added point mutations and sometimes miraculously added
>whole genes and sometimes miraculously duplicated a chromosome,
>and/or fused or separated a chromosome, over time in discrete
>species, THEN where do you draw the line at "kinds?"
Ed by mentioning "kinds" and "I.D." is evidently getting confused between
*creation* and ID. ID is a theory based solely on the evidence of *nature*
(not the Bible) so it would have no reason to be concerned with "kinds",
which is a Biblical word.
Off-hand, the nearest I can think of ID getting into the question of "kinds"
(without AFAIK not mentioning the word) is Denton's discussion in his two
books about Aristotelian typology.
However, if Ed is aware of the ID movement itself aking any claims for
"kinds" (as distinct from individual creationists who happen also to be
IDists making claims about "kinds" as creationists), I would appreciate
Ed quoting those claims.
In the meantime, my interest personally in "kinds" is in the context of
my General Theory of Progressive Creation (see below), not as an IDist.
EB>Has that line
>vanished for the I.D.er just as for the evolutionist who also accepts
>point mutations and gene duplication with mutation, and chromosomal
>duplications and fusings and breakings?
Here is the first draft outline of Chapter 3 "Creation in the Bible",
of my book "Progressive Creation", specifically section "3.2.D.1 Kinds:
"Progressive Creation: Towards a Scientific General Theory of Creation":
Chapter 3. Creation in the Bible
Heb. min, miyn.
"according to their various kinds" (Gn 1:11).
"according to their kinds" (Gn 1:12,21,24,25).
"each according to its kind" (Gn 1:24).
"seed-bearing plants" (Gn 1:11,12).
"trees ... that bear fruit with seed in it" (Gn 1:11,12).
"great creatures of the sea" (Gn 1:21).
"every living and moving thing with which the water teems" (Gn 1:21).
"The fish will be of many kinds" (Eze 47:10)
"every winged bird according to its kind" (Gn 1:21).
"every kind of bird" (Gn 6:20).
"every bird according to its kind, everything with wings" (Gn 7:14).
"any kind of black kite" (Lev 11:14).
"any kind of raven" (Lev 11:15; Dt 14:14).
"any kind of hawk" (Lev 11:16; Dt 14:15).
"any kind of heron" (Lev 11:19; Dt 14:18).
"any kind of falcon" (Dt 14:13).
"any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper" (Lev 11:22).
"land...living creatures" (Gn 1:24)
"creatures that move along the ground" (Gn 1:24,25)
"wild animals" (Gn 1:24,25)
"every kind of [land] animal" (Gn 6:20).
"every kind of creature that moves along the ground" (Gn 6:20).
"every wild animal according to its kind" (Gn 7:14).
"every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind" (Gn 7:14).
"livestock" (Gn 1:24,25)
"all livestock according to their kinds" (Gn 7:14).
"any kind of great lizard" (Lev 11:29).
Blocher H., "In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis,"
InterVarsity Press: Leicester UK, 1984, pp.71,225.
Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1988,
Fifth Printing, pp.383-384,480,482.
Gould S.J., "A Quahog is a Quahog," in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections
in Natural History," , Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.170-177.
Kaiser W.C., "min. Kind," in Harris R.L., Archer G.L. & Waltke B.K., eds,
"Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," , Moody Press:
Chicago IL, 1992, Twelfth Printing, Vol. I, pp.1191-1192.
Marsh F.L., "Variation and Fixity in Nature," Pacific Press: Mountain View CA,
Nelson B.C., "After Its Kind," , Bethany Fellowship: Minneapolis
MN, Revised Edition, 1970, Nineteenth Printing, pp.2ff.
Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict?," Zondervan:
Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p.263-264.
Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture,"  Paternoster:
Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.37.
Spanner D.C., "Biblical Creation and the Theory of Evolution," Paternoster:
Exeter, Devon UK, 1987, p.136.
Stoner D.W., "A New Look at an Old Earth," , Harvest House
Publishers: Eugene OR, 1997, Updated & Expanded, p.155.
Young E.J., "Studies in Genesis One," Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co:
Philadelphia PA, 1964, p.92.
Zimmerman P.A., ed., "Darwin, Evolution, and Creation," , Concordia: St Louis
MO, 1966, Fifth Printing, pp.x,14,33,124,135,141.
Copyright (c) 2002-2003, Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved.
I didn't have the time to flesh it out, but there is a tagline quote by
OEC Stoner: "Here the traditional understanding of the Bible has stood firmly
where the most popular scientific theory has needed continuous readjustment",
which could start the ball rolling!
"Another interesting point is that the Bible says that seed-bearing plants
and trees (as well as all animals) were created "according to their kinds"
(Genesis 1:11,12,21,24). Traditionally this is understood to mean they will
also "reproduce" according to their kinds. The word "reproduce" is not
actually part of the biblical statement, but it is so frequently added to it that
we may have come to regard it as part of God's Word. Whether or not the
phrase "according to their kinds" means what is usually claimed, it is still
true that God created each of the various "kinds" of animals; they did not
create themselves. This runs contrary to the spirit of Darwin's theory of
gradual and continuous evolution, but the fossil record has stubbornly
borne out Genesis and not Darwin in this regard. New "kinds" of life seem
to appear, as if from nowhere, and then remain essentially unchanged for
their entire stay on the planet-in many cases, for a great many millions of
years! Here the traditional understanding of the Bible has stood firmly
where the most popular scientific theory has needed continuous
readjustment." (Stoner D.W., "A New Look at an Old Earth," ,
Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1997, Updated & Expanded, p.154)
Stephen E. Jones. sejones@.... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
My interest personally in "kinds" is in the context of my General
Theory of Progressive Creation...there is a tagline quote about
how "new kinds of life seem to appear, as if from nowhere, and then
remain essentially unchanged for their entire stay on the planet-in
many cases, for a great many millions of years!" (Stoner D.W., "A New
Look at an Old Earth," 
Depends on what you mean by "appears, as if from nowhere." Have you
seen photos of the fossils of the pre-Cambrian creatures that
preceded the Trilobites? A few of them share a similar overall shape
and similar bilateral eyes to the trilobites that followed them in
geological time. So it does not appear that the trilobites "appeared
The same thing goes for the rest of the species in the geological
record, they do not "appear as if from nowhere." Take the case of
birds. There are several known species of feathered dinosaurs that
appeared before the first powered reptilian fliers appeared. And all
of the earliest known bird fossils were not as well adapted to flight
as later species of birds were. So a trail of increasing
specialization can be traced in the fossil record. To give some
examples, the earliest known bird fossils have triangular reptilian
skull, teeth, long bony tails, unfused metacarpals, and small keel
bones, in other words, the boney tails created drag, the unfused
metacarpals made flight stability a problem, the teeth added weight
and drag, as did the heavier bones and skulls of the earliest known
bird species, and the keel bone was of such a relatively small size
that huge flight muscles could not have been attached to it, but
humbler smaller flight muscles. While all of today's species of birds
(though I am unsure about penguin anatomy), have huge keel bones that
run from the tops to the bottoms of their torsos, which connect with
huge flight muscles (think of a turkey's breast, and they don't even
fly), but they still have the large keel bone, far larger than the
earliest known fossil birds had. And modern birds have a light skull
that is shaped like a motorcyclist's helmet. Smooth and light. And
modern bird have fused metacarpals (wrist bones) for increased
mobility in flight and for longer flight, and they have pigostyle
bones, small abrupt tail bones that remain inside their bodies
(except of course for feathers that may sprout from that area of
their body). So the most specialized species of birds came later,
AFTER species of feathered dinosaurs and AFTER species of less well
adapted fliers. And of course, one of the most highly specialized
fliers is the modern hummingbird, the only species of bird that is
able to also fly backwards.
The same thing goes for cetaceans (whales and dolphins). They do
not "appear from nowhere" in the fossil record. There is a trail of
increasing specialization in Cetaceans in the fossil record. There
are land animals with earbones specialized for better underwater
hearing. And then there are amphibious creatures that resemble
Pakicetus in specific ways, and of course primitive cetaceans (whales
and dolphins though at this early time there is no real distinction
between the two, they are all simply primitive cetaceans) none of the
primitive cetaceans were the size of today's huge modern whales, and
the primitive cetaceans all had heads that were shaped more like
those of Pakicetus than like the shape of the heads of modern day
whales or dolphins. Some primitive cetacean species still had hind
legs, and their earbones show increasing specialization toward
hearing underwater (has to do with the bones of the skull and shape
of the semi-circular canals). The teeth of primitive cetaceans still
shows some of the same features that distinguish the teeth of land
animals, front teeth are distinguished from cannines and from the
rear teeth, but modern cetaceans have teeth that are all the same,
little cones in dolphins, or in modern whales we have some with
teeth, some with baleen. So modern species are distinquishable from
primitve whales. And in some modern cetacean species, the sonar
detection apparatus exists. But in primitive whales the tell tale
signs in the skull of such an apparatus existing back then, have not
been found. So, modern whales do not "appear out of nowhere" in the
I could have also drawn attention to man not "appearing out of
nowhere" in the fossil record.
Of course if Stoner wishes to concentrate on the species that
have "remained the same over many millions of years," say, bacteria,
or jellyfish, that's his prerogative. It's just that he is not
addressing the geological evidence of birds and whales I mentioned
above, neither of which appear to have "appeared out of nowhere,"