How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

But its even better when it is descent with modification. TTFN,WK

I think it was pretty clear that what was meant was a scientific definition for 'Kind' as a scientific term. Your definition is not that and your examples go to show how scientifically vacuous the concept of 'Kind' is as a scientific term. When you have a classification system which describes the highly monomorphic human species as a single distinct group but lumps the tens of thousands of highly divergent species of fish together in one grouping then your classification system is worthless.TTFN,WK

I don't disagree with it, I just thing it is utterly irrelevant to evolution/creation. Showing that there are definitions for the word 'kind' doesn't show there is a clear common definition for 'kind' in the context it is used by creationists. If you aren't interested in discussing things from a scientific point of view then you seem to have pretty quickly solved the 'Is it science?' element of this topic, whatever you are talking about isn't science.TTFN,WK

Well then why not give us some examples of real science done on the ID side? Ideally this would be science actually supportive of the ID position. I know there are a few papers published by ID proponents but neither Doug Axe nor Michael Behe, perhaps the two most prominently published researchers, seem to have anything published which actually supports ID.TTFN,WK