>>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
Kalamata:
"No, science is science.
What many call science today, such as evolution, is not science, but religion." Sorry, but that's just a lie, regardless of how often you repeat it, it never becomes objectively true.
Kalamata quoting Paine: "As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God."
Paine was hardly the first to disparage Christians as "atheists" -- that's also what ancient pagan Greeks & Romans called Jews and Christians.
After all, they only believed in one God and He is invisible!
What a laugh, in the minds of ancient pagans.
Kalamata: "Paine was a deist"
Right, not an atheist.
Kalamata: "I adhere to the faith of a young earth and special creation, like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Steno."
Sure, and as you say, it's your faith, not science.
- Isaac Newton -- early 18th century mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist & theologian.
- Clark Maxwell -- 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
- Michael Faraday -- 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
- St. Nicholas Steno (Niels Steensen) -- 17th century, abandoned his advanced work in biology and geology after conversion to Catholicism.
None of the above can be described as having made an informed opinion regarding the overall age and natural history of the Earth.
Kalamata: "I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature?
Did you not bother to read my post?"
And that is post number what?
Kalamata: "Are you not aware that the Bible is not only historical and prophetic literature, but also scientific?"
Nowhere does the Bible itself claim to be scientific.
Kalamata: "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."
In fact, there is no scientific definition of "kind", never was -- not even by Linnaeaus back in 1735!
Kalamata: "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."
Sure, everybody speaks informally about "kinds of animals" or "kinds of plants", but "kinds" has never been a scientific classification.
Nor was Paley a scientist -- he was, naturally, a Unitarian theologian.
Kalamata: "Is that an adhominem?"
Well... would it be an ad hominem if you announce to the world that yours truly, BroJoeK, is literally, no rocket scientist?
Now just suppose I'd claimed to be a famous "rocket scientist" and you informed the world that, no, I'm not.
Is that ad hominem?
Kalamata: "Evolutionary biology is not science, so who cares what they think?"
Which scientists care what Kalamata thinks?
Kalamata: "Anyone who has been paying attention knows that atheists have been trying to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education. "
Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes.
It's not a matter of "erasing the Bible from science," because the Bible was never part of science.
Kalamata: "But he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh. Count on it."
Thus speaketh Kalamata!
Kalamata: "As aforementioned, the Bible, which is a book of science..."
The Bible itself never claims to be "a book of science".
Kalamata: "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."
Science has never recognized "kinds" but instead has always divided plants and animals into many different categories beginning with breeds & varieties up through sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, etc.
At each higher level of generalization it becomes more difficult, then impossible for different sub-groups to interbreed.
Sometimes the dividing line is species -- where different species don't or can't naturally interbreed.
Among other groups it's genera that can't interbreed, but in some cases even different genera can & do sometimes naturally interbreed.
Kalamata: "Why are you quibbling about the created kind?
Shouldn’t you be trying to find evidence of evolution for everyone to see?"
There are literal tons of evidence for anybody to see in any public natural history museum.
You should go look someday.
![]()