The problem with "kind" as I've seen it here is that Creationists tend to equate the word kind with a taxonomically useless grouping. For instance, we have the word "bats" that covers a wide range of species with a lot of variation, but since we have a word for it, and there is a general morphological equality between them, it must be a kind. We also hear "Dogs are always going to be dogs," so this time, the type is at a species level, assuming the creationists are honest enough to allow wolves in the category.
The problem with this type of classification is that we end up with categories based entirely on historical morphological similarity recognition, and based on genetics, or any other science, these terms are quite useless. It's how Creationists can say, "It's still a bat." or "It's still a mosquito."
We also run into the problem of creationists not understanding evolution or cladistics. The biological response to the above statements is, "Yeah, I know, that's how evolution requires it to be."