Here is the information about how confused the eminent creationist Duane Gish is about “kinds”. <> [1]>> >> > Second, how about YOU tell us what a ‘kind’ is.

[2]

‘Kind’ matches with ‘family’ – ie the Dog family is Canidae; the Cat family is Feline etc. Using the term ‘kind’ as given in the Bible, the ancestor of dogs would be the wolf which had programmed within its original genes those genes to enable it to become the variety of members of that family we have in the world today.

[3]

That just switches the problem from defining ‘kind’ to defining ‘family’ in Creationism’s animal kingdom. In any case, if it means, ‘family’ then why the need for, “kind’? Giving a few examples doesn’t help either. I want to know what defines the Creationists’ ‘kind’ and I want you to tell me. THAT is what I asked.

[4]

I’ll dig out my copy of Duane Gish’s “Evolution: The Fossils Say No!” and post a transcript of one page. Gish is so confused about what a “kind” is that he can make it fit with a vast range of concepts.

About the only thing creationists are agreed on is that Homo sapiens is a different “kind” to any other organism.

Ken:

In his book “Evolution: The Fossils Say No!” (Creation-Life Publishers, 2nd edition, 1973) Duane Gish writes at some length about “kinds” of organisms. On page 22 the following, occupying nearly 2/3 of a page, shows how confused Gish is about “kinds””

~~~

In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a separate kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds.

Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles) and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, oppossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.

~~~

I heard Gish speak once along these lines to a creationist audience, and not one of them seemed to see anything wrong. But let us look a bit more closely at chimpanzees.

According to the second sentence of the third paragraph here chimpanzees are a “basic kind”, and so “derived from a single stock”, and are a different basic kind to orangutans and gorillas.

But according to the first sentence of this paragraph all these apes form a basic kind, and so are “derived from a single stock”. Already we have Gish seeming to be an ardent evolutionist.

If we combine his words from the first sentence of the third paragraph with the last sentence of the first paragraph, and take his definition from the first sentence of the first paragraph we get:

duckbilled platypuses, oppossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to the mammalian basic kind, and so are derived from a single stock.

So despite all his rhetoric in the remainder of the book, Gish belies that human beings have evolved as part of the “mammal kind”.

Is it any wonder that with this sort of thing coming from one of the most prominent advocates of creationism, scientists simply ignore anything creationists write? And this includes anything they write about religion as well.

This point has been put succinctly by Conrad Hyers in his book “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” (John Knox Press, 1984). On page 26 he writes:

~~~

It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it.

~~~

Jesus said something about an appropriate penalty for anyone who puts a stumbling block in the way of a child. I think the same penalty would be appropriate for those who put the stumbling block of creationism in the way of thinking school students or university students and staff.