On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
Since no creationist to the best of my knowledge, has ever given a definition of 'kind', I doubt that you would break the mould but we live in hope. Are you prepared to offer such a definition?
I suppose that's a perennial problem, since everything asserted must be to best of our knowledge (how can it exceed our knowledge, after all?). If one's knowledge is broad-based and well-read in the top creationist literature, that observation would have some inductive weight. But I suspect this is not the case for you, Paul, since the single highest profile creationist is the late Stephen Jay Gould's assistant, Dr. Kurt Wise, and Dr. Wise has developed an entire locus of creationist science concerning the definition of kinds (baraminology). So, I'm afraid that your off-the-cuff criticism could have been better researched with little effort.
MartinP.S. Note the circularity in the "Criticism" section in the Wikipedia article on baraminology -- e.g., that no articles concerning the topic appear in scientifically peer-reviewed journals. How quaint, considering how the scientific community savaged a pro- evolutionist editor for publishing Steve Dembski's paper on Intelligent Design in a Smithsonian-affiliated scholarly journal -- savaged even though the paper had been unanimously approved by the journal's entire submission review committee (all evolutionists). The scandalous conduct of the Smithsonian in the aftermath of the publication made it abundantly clear that there is indeed a near- total blackout being enforced. If you're unaware of this situation, I'll provide links to illuminate the matter further. The controversy made it into the mainstream media -- this isn't some vague conspiracy theory over an obscure incident, this became big news with a high profile.