I see what you are saying, but isn't it also possible that the word "kind" can take on slightly different meaning based on context just as many words can/do?
Creationists seem quite definite about what it means --- also about details of biology of which they are in fact completely ignorant:
מין
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".
Will you tell them to stop or shall I?
But in any case, my main point remains. If a "kind" includes several species, that would not get rid of the fact that the species would show a genetic bottleneck just as the "kinds" would.
With the "creating a cell" thing I made reference to, I didn't literally mean that this was the basis of my belief or disbelief in the Bible. I actually said it with the nature of science in general in mind. The more we discover, the more we realize we don't know. There is no end to knowledge. The deeper we dig, the more wrong we discover we have been previously. Science is kind of like seeing while blind. I hope I'm making sense, lol.
Again, I invite you to imagine a defense attorney making this argument as a reason why the jury should ignore all the forensic evidence. Would this not be as much as to say: "Sure, all the evidence is against my client --- but I'd like you to ignore that"?
I should also say, if I can do so without giving offense, that I doubt the sincerity of the argument.
Let me put it this way. Suppose that radiometric dating showed that the Earth was six thousand years old. Suppose that genetic analysis was consistent with the story of the Ark. Suppose that when we looked at the fossil record we found all the "kinds" present from the pre-Cambrian on up. Be honest --- would you
then be telling us that because "science is kind of like seeing while blind" we couldn't take this as evidence that YECs are
right? Would you be saying that evolution was still a perfectly good possibility, because "the more we discover, the more we realize we don't know"?
I doubt it very much. You have adopted the epistemology of a man who knows that all the evidence is against his beliefs, but is unwilling to give them up.
Now, as the jury in this case, I think that whatever our philosophical doubts about scientific knowledge we are bound in all honesty to find, even if only provisionally, that the theory supported by all the scientific data is superior to the hypothesis contradicted by all the scientific data. This need not prevent us from changing our minds if something new comes up.
™ Version 4.2