In order to gain scientific respectability, which "kinds" lacks, some creationists are pushing "baraminology." (The term baraminology means study of created kinds.)
Here are some guidelines for baraminology (
Source):
Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.
2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible
6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. [Emphasis added]
So recent attempts to dress up "kinds" in scientific wrappings turn out to be a colossal failure because the definitions still rely on the bible.
Oh, the definition of "kinds?"
Whatever one's interpretation of the bible suggests.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
