The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

Created Kinds

“Scientific creationists” classify organisms not by standard Linnean taxonomic procedures, but rather group them into basic “kinds” (the terms “type” and “kind” are apparently synonymous; Gish, 1995, p. 29-31). As Morris & Parker (1987, p. 137, 138) stated, “For creationists, it’s the created type that is the real unit in nature.” Gish’s (1995, p. 29) definition is that, “A basic animal or plant type would include all animals or plants which were truly derived from a single stock.” As e xamples of “basic kinds,” Gish (1995, p. 30) offered the following: “Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic types. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs..., an d ichthyosaurs...would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs , cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic types. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.”

That is curious: “kinds” are identified to exist as a hierarchy, “kinds” within other “kinds.” Yet Gish (1985, p. 34; 1995, p. 35) stated both that God separately created all of these basic animal and plant “kinds,” and that a “kind” includes those variants which have been derived by genetic variation from a single stock. If a “kind” consists of all those variants derived from a single stock, then how can some of the variants also have been created separately? At what level did God r eally create? This is both internally inconsistent and a major logical fallacy. Furthermore, it renders “creation science” neither falsifiable nor scientific. Scientists, and to some extent “creation scientists,” both agree that finding transitional forms between taxa (or “kinds”) would falsify “scientific creationism” (Cuffey, 1984; Gish, 1995, p. 40, 41). But, given the internally inconsistent definition of “basic kind,” what should be looked for? If intermediates between two species of the brachiopod < i>Eocoelia are found, it can be explained as “variation within the Eocoelia kind.” If intermediates connecting Hyracotherium with Equus are found, it can be explained as “variation within the horse kind.” If intermediates between mesonychid ungulates and whales are found, it can be explained as “variation within the mammal kind.” If intermediates between reptiles and mammals are found, it can be explained as “variation within the vertebrate kind.” One could also argue that such in termediates are separate “created kinds.” For example, Morris & Parker (1987, p. 137) stated that, “Because of its unique combination of complete, functionally integrated traits, Archaeopteryx would qualify as a created type.” That is an illogi cal semantic game that renders “creation science” unscientific.

“Scientific creationists” equate “variation within a kind” with microevolution and origin of new “kinds” with macroevolution (Brown, 1986; Morris, 1994). That misrepresents both concepts. As previously stated, microevolution results in the origin of new species. As defined by Gish, some “kinds” are species (such as humans; Gish, 1995, p. 29) and so their origin would be by microevolution, not macroevolution, and thus could be considered “variation within a kind.” That internal incons istency thus implies that humans originated by microevolution and were not specially created. Furthermore, some “kinds” as defined by Gish include not just many species, but also more than one higher taxon, and so their origins include both macroevolution and microevolution.

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.