Replies

>>By definition “the created kind” is a non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science.

Baloney. The created kind has been a part of natural science from the beginning of creation. Atheists have tried to erase it from the ranks of science, but they have failed, and failed miserably.

>>The taxonomic rank of family goes back to the 1700s and refers to genera with similar characteristics, but there is no strict definition.

True. That is the new-fangled definition imagined by Linnaeus, which is still subject to the imagination of the user.

On the other hand, Children can typically understand the created kind. In his great work, “Natural Theology”, William Paley mentioned several kinds, such as the Lizard kind, Cat kind, and Deer kind:

“To say nothing of the reproduction of limbs in crustaceous animals, the wonderful but well attested fact, of the formation of a new eye in an animal of the lizard kind, in the place of one which had been cut out of the socket, is one which no atheistical theory can approach, in the way of explanation.” [William Paley, “Natural Theology.” Sheldon & Company, 1879, FN, p.33]

“In the cat kind there is a horny or prickly set covering the tongue, rendering it rough, and enabling it to take firmer hold of the prey. Birds also have a similar contrivance. In fish the tongue is covered by a number of teeth, serving the same purpose.” [Ibid. FN, pp.80-81]

“The different length of the intestines in carnivorous and herbivorous animals, has been noticed on a former occasion. The shortest, I believe, is that of some birds of prey, in which the intestinal canal is little more than a straight passage from the mouth to the vent. The longest is in the deer kind.” [Ibid. p.131]

I doubt any scientist of his day did not understand what Paley was referring to; and I doubt any serious scientist today does not understand that the created kind is what is typically called the “family”.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "Baloney.
The created kind has been a part of natural science from the beginning of creation.
Atheists have tried to erase it from the ranks of science, but they have failed, and failed miserably."

Completely wrong, beginning here: the term "natural-science" comes from our Founding Fathers' understanding of "natural philosophy", meaning that branch of philosophy which studied natural explanations for natural processes.
It was never intended to justify or excuse atheism, merely to focus methodologically on the natural realm.

So, when we say "science" today, we mean what our Enlightenment Era Founding Fathers understood by "natural philosophy" and none of them were atheists (not even Thomas Paine).
Your term, "created kind" has never, ever, been a scientific term, and your claim that it roughly corresponds to taxonomic "family" has no basis in any scientific literature.

quoting BJK: "The taxonomic rank of family goes back to the 1700s and refers to genera with similar characteristics, but there is no strict definition."

Kalamata: "True.
That is the new-fangled definition imagined by Linnaeus, which is still subject to the imagination of the user."

"New-fangled"?! Sure, in 1735!!
Linnaeus' ideas (like Darwin's) have been revised & updated for centuries, but remain today useful in naming, classifying & understanding life on Earth.

Kalamata: "On the other hand, Children can typically understand the created kind.
In his great work, “Natural Theology”, William Paley... "

Careful citing Unitarian Paley, as he is sometimes said to have influenced Charles Darwin -- after all their portraits face each other, side by side, at Christ's College of Cambridge, which both attended and where Darwin studied Paley's works.

Paley is most famous for creating the watchmaker analogy (c. 1802) to support God's existence.
He is not known for any expertise in biology or taxonomic classifications.

Kalamata: "I doubt any serious scientist today does not understand that the created kind is what is typically called the “family”."

No recognized biologist today, none, would formally associate your made-up term "created kind" with the taxonomic category of "family".
Indeed, there is no scientific definition for "created kind", never was, very likely never will be.