Much as I enjoy yet another opportunity to point out a certain latent hypocrisy in the reasoning of some members of the CWU, I'm going to try and keep this observation a) short and b) on-topic. To the specific point about hypocrisy, I think it's important to take just a moment to remember that several CWU members have been openly critical of the Church specifically on the basis of the fact that she draws upon Aristotelean philosophy for the formation of some of her doctrines.

This is, of course, presented as evidence of pagan corruption infecting the Church. Keep it in mind, good reader; it'll be relevant shortly.

Okay, so...this notion of created kinds. It's a pretty common argument put forth by anti-evolutioinists, and basically argues that while species can vary, even to the point of becoming reproductively isolated from one another (e.g. unable to interbreed, which is a clear indicator of one species having become two), this variance only happens within the species overall "kind."

Of course, exactly what a "kind" is, and what the boundaries for considering something to be within the same kind as something else, are concepts which are not well-defined. Taking fish as our example -- are there multiple "kinds" of fish, or are fish (e.g. the Chordata phylum) a kind to themselves.

Here's three fish: the black seadevil, the salmon, and the leafy sea dragon. Genotypically and phenotypically, these fish are very clearly of different species. Are they of the same kind, or are they of different kinds?

To read the latest article pertaining to this topic on the CWU, it would appear that the boundary of "kind" is at the Phylum level on the taxonomic scale.

But consider, for example, anti-evolutionst protestations that land-based ancient mammals did not evolve into whales. To them, this is a violation of kinds; a pre-historic cow-ancestor and a whale are not of the same kind, are they?

Well, actually, they are, at least if "a fish is still a fish" is the guiding principle to use in determining where the boundary of a "kind" really is. "Fish" is actually a very broad term, referring to a whole subset of living creatures with a wide variety of phenotypical differences. As such, as was previously noted, to present a taxonomic category that includes all fish species, we must use the Phylum category -- to be more precise, we must enumerate specific cIasses of the Chordata phylum.

And, as was also previously noted, the argument that "a fish remains a fish" means that the boundary condition for a "kind" is the Phylum of the animal. For the sake of charity in debate, though, let us suppose that the boundary is actually at the taxonomic level called CIass.

Either choice -- Phylum or CIass -- means, incidentally, that whales and land-dwelling ungulates are actually of the same kind, since they are of the same Phylum AND CIass. In fact, the taxonomic similarity between whales and land-dwelling ungulates extends as far as Order.

* * *

Excursis:

If one recalls one's taxonomic scale, the basic progression is this:

Life -> Kingdom -> Phylum -> CIass (boundary condition for "kinds") -> InfracIass -> Superorder -> Order

* * *

So now there's a real problem. The taxonomic scale is a very good measure of how closely related different animal species are, as it takes into account both genotypic and phenotypic qualities of the animals it cIassifies. Even the most ardent anti-evolutionists don't typically dispute it.

And yet, it would appear that anti-evolutionsts are double-dipping, and contradicting themselves, with their use of the notion of "kinds." Because while the notion of "kinds" is used to say that a fish evolving into a different species of fish is still variation within "kinds" -- which thus fixes the boundary condition for "kinds" at the CIass taxon -- it is also used to say that an ungulate evolving into a whale is NOT variation within kinds, despite the fact that at that point, we're talking about the Order taxon, which is orders of magnitude more precise than the CIass taxon.

In other words: whale evolution is a better example of variation within "kinds," assuming that "kinds" can be concretely defined, than is the notion that "a fish remains a fish."

But let's come back to what I noted about hypocrisy, and about the condemnation of the Church as being corrupted by paganism because it draws on Aristotelean (e.g. pagan Greek) philsophy in the formation of its doctrines. Surely, Biblical Christians do not do this?

Well...actually, they do. Or, at least, the CWU members who profess to a) be Biblical Christians, and b) believe in the fixity of "kinds" (e.g. the impossibility of a species evolving into something outside its "kind," whatever that might be), do. Because what the Answers in Genesis article I cited previously was getting at is that the notion of the fixity of kinds is actually not a Biblical notion at all -- it comes from Plato. The Bible speaks of animal kinds, and of reproduction according to kinds...but it nowhere specifically articulates that the kinds are fixed.

In other words, Biblical Christians who cling to the notion that kinds are fixed are actually drawing upon pagan Greek philosophy, though they may not know it. And if those same Biblical Christians just happen to have, in the past, criticized Catholicism for drawing upon Greek philosophy in the formation of its doctrines, guess what?

Yup -- they're hypocrites too.