A question about "kinds."

[Esquilax]

After watching a response video to a youtube creationist recently, within which the "they're just reproducing within their kinds!" nonsense was debunked yet again, a question occurred to me: what is that argument actually for?

So, to all those theists here who would use the word kind, to all those willing to quibble over nonexistent micro/macro-evolutionary distinctions, can I just ask what you think you're defending? If you've gotten to the point where you're now admitting evolution happens, but only within certain poorly defined boundaries... what is this argument intending to prove? What is so important in your belief system that it requires the denial of such a piffling, tiny point? You've been forced to edge this far toward evolution by simple facts, why is this final step such inviolable ground that the line needs to be drawn there?

It just seems so arbitrary to me, that you're okay with "kinds" of animals, but the idea that god could just have been talking about the animal kind or something is just so crazy and weird. What's the deal?

[Brakeman]

In a similar vein, christians disbelieve the obvious implications of DNA comparisons. ERV's and common genes are denied by them anytime it crosses their fairytale beliefs. However the overall similarities of life visible to even the layman is astounding support for kinship and origin, not of separation and separate origin. The mere fact that we can't tell visually the difference between bird, bat, cat, canine, bovine, or human blood from one another is a strong indicator of similarity and begs the question of why god only had one basic blueprint and had to make all of his creations using adaptations of it. It would seem that a true magic god could have made some amazing variety. Multiple methods of synthesizing energy from the sunlight is one. nuclear metabolism is another. Evolutions explains this copycat nature, god magic does not.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, most of us realize that arguing against modern synth in toto is useless, including the religious. The trouble is that you don't have to push it back very far until the notion of god as a creative force for all that we see becomes difficult to maintain. What happens to the authority of god, the divine will - when one realizes that said god had no hand in creating the "kinds" we see, including ourselves? It's not a piffling matter to those who wish to maintain the authority of their god. In this case, they're simply favoring the foundational framework of their beliefs over reality - because reality would seem, to them, to be lessened by an acceptance of reality as it is, rather than as they wish for it to be. Any line of "reasoning" that can be used to support that wish is going to get traction among some subset of the faithful. So there's that......but also, there's the fact that them boys aint too bright.

[RobbyPants]

After watching a response video to a youtube creationist recently, within which the "they're just reproducing within their kinds!" nonsense was debunked yet again, a question occurred to me: what is that argument actually for?

In my experience, the whole notion of "kinds" is used in a form of flood apologetics to say why Noah didn't need so many animals on the ark: Baraminology.

I've sense heard "kinds" used the way you mentioned, to split evolution into micro and macro to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to appear foolish and stupid by rejecting science, and ironically, they don't want to give up their book of mythology.

[Esquilax]

So, most of us realize that arguing against modern synth in toto is useless, including the religious. The trouble is that you don't have to push it back very far until the notion of god as a creative force for all that we see becomes difficult to maintain.

I initially thought so too, but then there's plenty of christians who manage to accept evolution by simply pushing god back behind some other gap in our knowledge, like the big bang. So there's clearly something keeping the evolution deniers lingering here rather than doing that too- it might have something to do with not being terribly bright, I agree, but I'm kinda fascinated by the psychology behind this particular permutation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, in the case of our resident flat tires - it;s generally an argument from consequences. My father-in-law is fond of saying "they want you to think that we came from pond scum!" - which is informative, I suppose, with regards to his internal workings - but as a statement, it falls flat. I could tell him that there is no "they" or that no one proposes that human beings were "pond scum" within any reasonable frame of reference, but it doesn;t matter. It's the emphasis that he spits the statement out with that explains why the statement has traction. We miss alot of that here on the internet. I bet these conversations would be alot less fascinating in person (I for one, would probably strangle a motherfucker irl - for the shit I try to have patience with online-try and mostly fail, mind you).

Evolution, and further the abandonment of some special spot in a creative moment demeans them somehow, generally, is my experience. They probably had shitty science teachers.

[Tonus]

The mere fact that we can't tell visually the difference between bird, bat, cat, canine, bovine, or human blood from one another is a strong indicator of similarity and begs the question of why god only had one basic blueprint and had to make all of his creations using adaptations of it. It would seem that a true magic god could have made some amazing variety. Multiple methods of synthesizing energy from the sunlight is one. nuclear metabolism is another. Evolutions explains this copycat nature, god magic does not.

I think it's important to note that while a powerful and magical god can "explain" any discovery, evolution requires certain things to be evident in order to remain a viable theory. As the old saying goes, a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer, or something similarly jarring, could at least force a complete reassessment of the theory. But the theory has held up so far through decades of new discoveries and new knowledge and additional testing and research. That's significant.

We may not be able to disprove god, but god seems incapable of disproving evolution. I think the latter is the more telling of the two.

[ignoramus]

God's got exactly the same chance of disproving evolution as unicorns have, technically speaking.
Is it possible for anything to disprove evolution now?
Best he can now do is prove the god gene is responsible for evolution.
Again, zero proof so far.

[Jenny A]

Well, in the case of our resident flat tires - it;s generally an argument from consequences. My father-in-law is fond of saying "they want you to think that we came from pond scum!" - which is informative, I suppose, with regards to his internal workings - but as a statement, it falls flat. <snip>

Evolution, and further the abandonment of some special spot in a creative moment demeans them somehow, generally, is my experience. They probably had shitty science teachers.

I think you hit on something important here. The reason Galileo got in trouble was not so much that his theory contradicted the Bible, but that it suggested humans weren't the center of the universe. Being only one animal among many instead of created "in the image of God" is the real problem Fundies have with evolution. It deflates their sense of self-importance.

Though why pond scum is worse than dust, I cannot say.

[Minimalist]

Creatards are a kind.