quote:
[Kind is] the limited classifcation of animals based on what people 3 thousand years ago understood, which our current classifications overwrite....
No, I think there's more to it than that.
There can be different species of cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc. And, through descent with modification, new species of any animals can arise. But cats only beget cats, dogs only beget dogs, birds only beget birds......
Creos seem to argue that, since we've never actually see one "kind" of animal evolve into another "kind," "microevolution" can be taken as an accepted fact, but there's no evidence of "macroevolution."
Science tries to speak in terms with very specific and clear meanings. Sometimes these meanings change over time. "Planet" used to refer to certain heavenly bodies that were believed to revolve around the earth. If you were to try to explain that the Earth is a planet, your words would be nonsensical. When the concept of the heliocentric system was accepted, "planet" came to mean certain bodies revolving around the sun.
In every day language, we use the word "kind" all the time without there being a single, clearly-defined meaning. If someone were to ask you, "What kind of pet do you have?" you would have no trouble understanding what they are asking, and could easily answer, "I have a dog."
The reason that creos' use of the word "kind" without giving a precise definition is a problem is because creos are notoriously slippery. They ask for transitional animals, we give them Archie. That isn't good enough for them, because Archie had fully developed feathers. "Where is the transition from no feathers to full feathers?" Why, we didn't provide a transitional animal, we've merely doubled our trouble, because now there are
two gaps to fill.
Perhaps the attack on the creo term "kind" should be two-fold: continue to demand a specific definition, but at the same time, provide examples of clear transitional series between different species that are obviously a different "kind," no matter how that term is defined.
I know full well that we will never convince creos like Faith that evolution is a fact. She has made it clear that, for her, all answers begin and end in the bible as she interprets it. And that's fine. She's entitled to live her life as she chooses, no skin off my nose. But the fact of the matter is that most people in this country do
not look at the world that way. The percentage of people who reject evolution outright because of biblical literalism is quite small. The battle, instead, is directed to those who want science taught in school, even if it does (seem to) conflict with stories from the bible.
Americans love to be "fair," to let all sides be heard. What we need to do it make it clear that, based on the evidence we have at our disposal right now, there really is only one side to this question, from a scientific point of view.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
™ Version 4.2
