Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[6days]

A Christian perspective on Biological classification and cladistics......

There are some great articles on the topic such as...
"Hebrew Scriptures as an aid to developing a creationist taxonomy"
http://creation.com/Hebrew-Scriptures-creationist-taxonomy

A Biblically Based Taxonomy?
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/a-biblically-based-taxonomy/

 

[Greg Jennings]

There are some great articles on the topic such as...

From your first link: 'It does not appear that God intended to give us a list of taxonomic terms. Instead, the accounts appear to reflect the fact that God created all life in “every corner” of the earth: sea, sky, and land. Life in all these regions is animate and active. God put them under the dominion of people and provided for them. Of all the groups of creatures listed, the birds (עוֹף, ‛ôp) appear to be used most consistently. These winged flying creatures include more than just birds, but also bats and flying insects.'

Not to be argumentative, but do you consider flying insects and bats to be birds? Your source argues that the Bible does just that.

Your second source is authored by Bodie Hodge. He's Ken Ham's son-in-law and has 0 degrees to his name just like his famous father-in-law. Do you really think that going to people without proper credentials will give you good info?

 

[gcthomas]

Context helps create the meaning. If you want to be part of a discussion, you have to be able to read. The Bible plainly teaches "six days." The stuff about seeds plainly teaches something about faith. When you're ignoring what is plainly said to try and score some obscure point, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, so you interpret based on wider context when it suits your prior beliefs, and refuse to do so when that also suits.

Got it. The Biblical text is malleable to your particular interpretation of 'plain' meaning. That must be why every religious tradition interprets the Bible differently yet is convinced that they alone are right.

In my experience, when one text has multiple plain interpretations then you cannot trust any one of them. You wriggle too much, 'Tripey, and simply assume your interpretation is the correct one without proper consideration.

 

[Stripe]

Oh, so you interpret based on wider context when it suits your prior beliefs, and refuse to do so when that also suits.

Nope. When you read, the meaning should be clear.

Got it. The Biblical text is malleable to your particular interpretation of 'plain' meaning. That must be why every religious tradition interprets the Bible differently yet is convinced that they alone are right.

Nope. Words have meaning.

In my experience, when one text has multiple plain interpretations then you cannot trust any one of them. You wriggle too much, 'Tripey, and simply assume your interpretation is the correct one without proper consideration.

:yawn:

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. When you read, the meaning should be clear.

Nope. Words have meaning.

:yawn:

The English language, or any human natural language for that matter, is not a formal system which has had ambiguity and complexity removed from it. Ambiguity can generally be resolved in a conversation through analysis and questioning, or by making the same assumptions as the author, but this is not possible in ancient written language where the authors cannot respond and will have different experiences and linguistic/social/technical assumptions.

So, how is that ambiguity resolved? You do it by assuming that the meaning you'd like to be true is the Truth, but that is a clear mistake when you know written language is routinely indeterminate.

Yes, of course words have meaning. But there is often more that one meaning, and you have to pick. I know that, but you deny that you are making an interpretive judgement. And in doing that you deceive yourself.

 

[6days]

From your first link: 'It does not appear that God intended to give us a list of taxonomic terms. Instead, the accounts appear to reflect the fact that God created all life in “every corner” of the earth: sea, sky, and land. Life in all these regions is animate and active. God put them under the dominion of people and provided for them. Of all the groups of creatures listed, the birds (עוֹף, ‛ôp) appear to be used most consistently. These winged flying creatures include more than just birds, but also bats and flying insects.'

Hey Greg... welcome to TOL.

Not to be argumentative, but do you consider flying insects and bats to be birds? Your source argues that the Bible does just that.

Haaa....I'm not looking at the article now but you must have misunderstood something. Offhand though, I believe the Hebrew word describes 'flying things' being created on the 5th day which is often translated as birds. God's Word tells us that they will all reproduce according to their kinds.*

Your second source is authored by Bodie Hodge. He's Ken Ham's son-in-law and has 0 degrees to his name just like his famous father-in-law. Do you really think that going to people without proper credentials will give you good info?

Ad hominem is attacking the person instead of their argument.*

 

[genuineoriginal]

Linneaus was a Christian, a creationist and a originally a "fixist" (meaning species could not change over time) though he eventually changed his position.

So the idea of species came from a creationist viewpoint.

Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?

If you are referring to the word "species" itself, the concept of the original word may have come from a creationist viewpoint, but the word has been taken over by those hostile to creation who changed the meaning.

It is like the way the word "gay" used to imply a certain level of merriment but has been taken over by those hostile to morality who changed the meaning.

 

[Stripe]

The English language, or any human natural language for that matter, is not a formal system which has had ambiguity and complexity removed from it. Ambiguity can generally be resolved in a conversation through analysis and questioning, or by making the same assumptions as the author, but this is not possible in ancient written language where the authors cannot respond and will have different experiences and linguistic/social/technical assumptions.

So, how is that ambiguity resolved? You do it by assuming that the meaning you'd like to be true is the Truth, but that is a clear mistake when you know written language is routinely indeterminate.

Yes, of course words have meaning. But there is often more that one meaning, and you have to pick. I know that, but you deny that you are making an interpretive judgement. And in doing that you deceive yourself.

Nope. You just read the story. There is no ambiguity or "interpretation." The Bible teaches "six days."

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hey Greg... welcome to TOL.



Haaa....I'm not looking at the article now but you must have misunderstood something. Offhand though, I believe the Hebrew word describes 'flying things' being created on the 5th day which is often translated as birds. God's Word tells us that they will all reproduce according to their kinds.*



Ad hominem is attacking the person instead of their argument.*

Thanks! Glad to be here!

Perhaps I did misunderstand something about the first link.

I'm not attacking Bodie Hodge and requiring proper credentials proving expertise is not a fallacy. Why do you think that 8-12 years of schooling is required to have a medical license? It's because that license proves to potential employers that the candidate is properly educated and qualified for the job they are seeking. In Bodie's case he has no qualifying credentials and that makes his opinion basically a blog post. It has no more true merit than what you or I say on this forum. Additionally I've read his article and this entire thread. Anything he said in that article was refuted by equally qualified people on this very thread.

Sorry to be so argumentative as the new guy

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. You just read the story. There is no ambiguity or "interpretation." The Bible teaches "six days."

Maybe you'll understand if I wrote it in emoticon?

:sheep::doh::stuck:

It must be lonely inside your head, with so little going on in there. YECs. Sheesh.

:wave:

 

[Jose Fly]

Common ancestry is a belief, not science.

I know that's what you believe, but that's not what I asked.

We could ask your question like this. If a person was a complete blank slate (nobody is) *reviewing the science, and conclude that there is design to the universe...design in nature...would it be logical for them to conclude *that there is a designer?*

If *a person accepts common ancestry beliefs, they have reached the wrong conclusion since that contradicts the absolute truth of God's Word.*

So we can just add this one to the list of questions you cannot answer.

 

[6days]

When you read, the meaning should be clear.
Nope. Words have meaning.

The English language, or any human natural language for that matter, is not a formal system which has had ambiguity and complexity removed from it. Ambiguity can generally be resolved in a conversation through analysis and questioning, or by making the same assumptions as the author, but this is not possible in ancient written language where the authors cannot respond and will have different experiences and linguistic/social/technical assumptions.

It isn't difficult to determine the meaning at all of the six days in Genesis 1.*

We can determine meaning by context.... within the constructs of language itself and by comparing to other authors to see how the language is used. The six days in Genesis are plainly referring to six literal days. I suspect you are not really interested in arguing this, but the days in Genesis 1 are not referring to longer periods of time.

As said earlier...context....context....context.

 

[Stripe]

Maybe you'll understand if I wrote it in emoticon?:sheep::doh::stuck:It must be lonely inside your head, with so little going on in there. YECs. Sheesh.:wave:

:wave2:

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

It isn't difficult to determine the meaning at all of the six days in Genesis 1.*

We can determine meaning by context.... within the constructs of language itself and by comparing to other authors to see how the language is used. The six days in Genesis are plainly referring to six literal days. I suspect you are not really interested in arguing this, but the days in Genesis 1 are not referring to longer periods of time.

As said earlier...context....context....context.

:up:

The Bible teaches "six days" of creation and that "the whole world" was flooded. There is no need for "interpretation" and hardly any need for context. It is only those who are determined that their precious evolutionism must be protected who have trouble with simple comprehension.

 

[6days]

I'm not attacking Bodie Hodge and requiring proper credentials proving expertise is not a fallacy. ...

Bodie was discussing taxonomy from a Biblical perspective. If he makes a point you disagree with, let's discuss it. But to dismiss him based on education (or his relatives) is a form of ad hominem.*

Sorry to be so argumentative as the new guy

It's ok.... that's your job...until you become convinced of the absolute truth of God's Word.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Bodie was discussing taxonomy from a Biblical perspective. If he makes a point you disagree with, let's discuss it. But to dismiss him based on education (or his relatives) is a form of ad hominem.*


It's ok.... that's your job...until you become convinced of the absolute truth of God's Word.

Glad you understand. This may seem like an aside but it has to do with the specific 'kinds' mentioned in Leviticus in Bodie's article: Do you think that dinosaurs were part of God's creation and lived alongside man? Or do you think that they were part of a previous fallen creation?

 

[Stripe]

:bowser: :yoshi:

 

[6days]

Glad you understand. This may seem like an aside but it has to do with the specific 'kinds' mentioned in Leviticus in Bodie's article: Do you think that dinosaurs were part of God's creation and lived alongside man? Or do you think that they were part of a previous fallen creation?

No previous creation.... so alongside.

 

[George Affleck]

Your second source is authored by Bodie Hodge. He's Ken Ham's son-in-law and has 0 degrees to his name just like his famous father-in-law. Do you really think that going to people without proper credentials will give you good info?

Quote by Richard Dawkins:

"The refutation, of course, is simple: a lack of professional training in an area doesn’t mean that your statements about that area can be completely disregarded."

 

[George Affleck]

The Bible teaches "six days" of creation and that "the whole world" was flooded. There is no need for "interpretation" and hardly any need for context. It is only those who are determined that their precious evolutionism must be protected who have trouble with simple comprehension.

Perfectly put!

 

[Jose Fly]

So I looked at the AiG article on "kinds" and....well....like most other creationist material, it's downright hilarious.

In modern creationists’ studies, there is a field called baraminology that works to find the boundaries of the created kinds. The field is very much in its infancy

Wait.....what? Infancy? How long has Genesis been around? A couple thousand years or so? And these guys are just now getting around to trying to figure out what a "kind" is? Too funny. :chuckle:

Common ancestry is at the root of the evolutionary model proposed by theologian Charles Darwin in his books The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection for the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. This view is what dominates classification today.

Um, yeah....not just today, but for the last century and a half. Funny how it didn't take scientists very long to figure out a classification system based on evolutionary common ancestry, but creationists still can't figure out their own system.

The platypus is an excellent example of utilizing various features that we find on many different types of animals, a common designer made both the platypus as well as the other creatures it resembles. It would be absurd to claim that the duck, duckbill dinosaur, and platypus all came from a common ancestor. However, the similarities make sense when we realize that each had the same Creator.

Oh my goodness...that's one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Is this guy still in 3rd grade or something? :rotfl:

Then in the section about whether reproductive isolation is a criterion for "kinds", he writes...

From Jews like Josephus 2000 years ago to Basil the Great (a leading church father) to various commentaries, it seems that people have recognized that the boundary for a kind implied reproduction.

Leading Hebraist of the time Dr. John Gill, in his famous commentary for Baptists in the 1700s, says..

Wait....I thought he said figuring out what "kinds" are is still in its infancy? Which is it? :idunno:

Then he quotes the Bible and concludes...

These passages give great support to reproduction being the ultimate boundary for a kind.

...but then immediately backs away from that...

Some animals may have lost the ability to reproduce with others of their kinds. Think of a Shih-Tzu and Great Dane, where their size would inhibit any natural breeding. Of course, there are other reasons this can happen as well. For example, mutations could have caused them to lose this ability.

So is reproductive isolation a criterion for "kinds" or not? :idunno:

Thanks for linking to this 6days. It was extremely entertaining! :up: