A response to evolutionists

SLPx writes:

---

As for a definition of species, does it not stand to reason that if there were discreet created 'kinds' that such a definiton should be self-evident?

---

But defining species has its own problems and complexities. I don't think the difficulties associated with defining "kind" should be what casts the term into a negative light. For me it is instead the basis of its definition that is the problem. Science must follow the evidence from the natural world and not depend upon authority, and by this measure the definition of "kind" lacks a scientific foundation.--Percy

John writes:

---

Creationism, on the other hand, does seem to require a 'hard' definition-- if not at the species level, at least at the 'kind' level, wherever that may be.

---

Right! And because that requirement is driven by authority and not by real-world evidence it isn't scientific.--Percy

Biblical authority places certain requirements upon the definition of "kind". Because Biblical authority is not evidence from the natural world it is not a scientific constraint, and so the Creationist definition of "kind" lacks a scientific foundation.--Percy