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. ![]()
>>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.
You mean like Isaac Newton, William Paley and Matthew Maury? I agree.
***************************
>>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).”
No, science is science. What many call science today, such as evolution, is not science, but religion.
Paine was a deist, much like modern-day “theistic evolutionists”, who thought he knew more that the God of the Bible:
“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the surf, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.” [Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason.” Citadel Press, 1988, pp.72-73]
I adhere to the faith of a young earth and special creation, like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Steno.
***************************
>>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.”
You are simply parrotting the words of the anti-God types. I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature? Did you not bother to read my post? Are you not aware that the Bible is not only historical and prophetic literature, but also scientific?
***************************
>>”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.”
You, yourself said there was no strict definition. The “kind”, on the other hand, has been well-known and well-established in meaning for thousands of years.
***************************
>>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.”
The subject was the concept of “kind”, and Paley understood it. In fact, he frequently used the word to distinguish the different kinds of animals.
***************************
>>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.
Is that an adhominem?
***************************
>>No recognized biologist today, none, would formally associate your made-up term “created kind” with the taxonomic category of “family”.”
It depends on how you define “recognized” biologists. It is almost a certainty that a so-called “evolutionary biologist” would not accept the classification of the “created kind” because of biblical connotations, but not because of science. Evolutionary biology is not science, so who cares what they think?
***************************
>>Indeed, there is no scientific definition for “created kind”, never was, very likely never will be.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that atheists have been trying to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education. But he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh. Count on it.
As aforementioned, the Bible, which is a book of science, divides different groups of plants and animals into “kinds”, depending on certain characteristics. Recent research has substantiated that there are genetic barriers that keep species within their respective kinds. Therefore, genetic research and observable science both point to the biblical kind as real science.
Why are you quibbling about the created kind? Shouldn’t you be trying to find evidence of evolution for everyone to see?
Mr. Kalamata