Replies

OneWingedShark: "The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce 'after its own kind.' "

First of all, "kind" is not a scientific classification, nor can anyone, anywhere define precisely what a "kind" is.
Therefore the word "kind" is meaningless.

Second, except potentially in cases of viable hybrids (i.e., "groler-bears"), no parent ever gave birth to another "species". What happens instead is that every generation is slightly different from its parents and so over many generations -- thousands, millions -- these changes accumulate to the point where scientists can distinguish separate species, genera, families, etc.

So, it turns out -- however you wish to define "kind", every species does reproduce its own "kind", but every child is slightly changed from its parents, hence: evolution.

Of course 'kind' has meaning: mankind, for instance. Or, an illustration Jesus gave: an olive branch doesn't bear figs, but olives.
Even in the pure science, mathematics, there's a whole field dealing with the properties of 'kinds' of numbers: number theory; your argument is akin to saying that because there's only one number 3 there's no such thing as 'integer'.

OneWingedShark: "Of course 'kind' has meaning: mankind, for instance."

Sure, there is only one remaining "mankind", human beings, scientifically: homo sapiens sapiens, all of whom can and often do interbreed.
But in the not-so-distant past fossil and bone records show other homo species or sub-species, some of whom apparently did interbreed -- and left the evidence in our genetic inheritances.
So, were they necessarily different "kinds"?

And how many different zebra-kinds are there, or bear-kinds, elephant-kinds, whale-kinds, etc.?
Is "kind" the same as a scientific species, genus or family?
The truth of the matter is, nobody can say for certain, and scientifically, it's irrelevant.
The word "kind" has no meaning in science, and truthfully: no important meaning in theology either.
"Kind" is simply an imprecise word totally acceptable in the ancient world of non-scientific, mostly illiterate farmers & shepherds, but useless scientifically.

OneWingedShark: "your argument is akin to saying that because there's only one number 3 there's no such thing as 'integer'."

Not true.
I have simply challenged you to do the impossible: provide a scientifically useful and relevant definition of the word "kind".