I think your position is a bit stronger even than you represent.
Even if Scripture said or meant that animals reproduce after their kinds,
unless that was an absolute claim (i.e., necessarily or at least universally
true) rather than just a practical (and, of course, obviously practically
true) generalization, the point in question would not follow.
Too often I think Christians confuse a Scriptural statement's -being true-
with its -being necessarily true-.
(After all, even if one accepts the most hardcore version of inerrancy, in
which case NECESSARILY for all Scriptural propositions P, P is true, it
doesn't follow that for all Scriptural propositions P, P is NECESSARILY
true. [E.g., God could have named Adam "Ralph" instead. Adam was IN FACT,
but not NECESSARILY, named Adam.] To generalize: N(p->q) does not imply
p->Nq)
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Glenn R. Morton
Sent: Monday, May 25, 1998 9:13 PM
To: bpayne@voyageronline.net
Cc: Stephen Jones; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: evolution-digest V1 #930
....
You simply can't find a single verse in
Scripture that has 'animal' as subject, reproduce or its equivalent as
verb, and 'animal as object followed by after their kind. If the sentence
said,
"Animals give rise to animals after their kind" I would grant you your
point.
But it doesn't say that, It says,
"Let the LAND produce animals after their kind." Entirely different
meaning. REad the sentence!
....
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm