Rev. David Rives — Kinds vs. Species

The Drool-o-tron™ has been quiet lately, but it suddenly startled us with its sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). The Drool-o-tron™ had found the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

Our computer was locked onto this headline at WND: How ‘fixity of species’ contradicts the Bible.

That’s a surprising headline. Is the rev becoming an evolutionist? We won’t keep you in suspense. He’s still a good bible boy. The actual title of the video is “Kinds vs. Species.”

The rev tells us that fixity of species was a Greek idea; it isn’t in the bible. Darwin claimed that species change, and that’s something we can actually observe. But Darwin went too far when he said that not only do species change, but one kind can change into another kind. That means all species are related, which — gasp! — contradicts the bible.

The bible says that God created “kinds,” and they can change into various species, like lions and tigers, but they’re all the “cat kind.” However, one kind can’t change into another, so Darwin was wrong.

The rev finally got rid of that gray suit he’s been wearing for the last couple of months. Now he’s wearing a blue bible-boy suit, and he’s the cutest rev you’ve ever seen! The video is almost four minutes long before the commercial at the end. Go ahead, click over to WND and watch it.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Kinds vs. Species

  1. An important step forward for the cutting edge research of baraminology. Baramin (or kind): all those individuals that can get infertile offspring. The Good Rev in a next video undoubtedly will address the question whether these two individuals

    belong to the same kind – ie how exactly they are supposed to get any offspring at all.

  2. Ross Cameron

    The Ice Ages weren`t in the bible. Asteroids hitting Earth aren`t in the bible. Jesus offering a cure for leprosy isn`t in the bible. Need I go on?

  3. Fixity of “kinds” isn’t in the Bible.
    The Bible doesn’t tell us that God created “kinds”. The Bible doesn’t say that different breeds of cattle are of the same “kind”, or whether cattle, goats, sheep are of the same – or different – “kind”, or about cattle, antelopes, hippos, giraffes, etc.The Bible doesn’t use the word “kind” (Hebrew “min”) in reference to humans.

  4. The bible says that God created “kinds,”

    Er, where?

  5. Evolution is like a tree. One branch is the offshoot of the the other. It is not that one branch is transformed into the other.

  6. A small, passing note for the IFFZ:

    It is now quite a long time since I voted Republican, but when I used to, it was chiefly out of the strong political preference (which I still hold) for the principle that government should be as small as possible.

    But it now seems to me that the new US administration has taking ‘small government’ to mean ‘government by the executive branch alone’, as if three co-equal branches of government is two branches too many.

    Unless, as it sometimes seems, the GOP is re-defining ‘small government’ in the same way that Mussolini did…

  7. The cute, smiling Rev doesn’t understand evolution and certainly doesn’t understand genetics. And winking while saying Darwin got the big picture wrong doesn’t make it so.

  8. Eddie Janssen

    Why should government be as small as possible (whatever that means)?

  9. Michael Fugate

    Turkey removes evolution from its curriculum.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7640/full/542165c.html

  10. The Bible does use the word “kind” (see Genesis 1:24); however, it doesn’t actually say that one “kind” can’t ever change into another.

    In aby event, “kind” as creationists use it is quite a flexible term: house cats and lions are of the same “kind,” but humans and apes are not, because the first doesn’t matter to creationists while the latter is a lie “straight from the pit of hell” because, if acknowledged, it would bring the whole creationist house of cards crashing down. Creationists’ objection to evolution has always been, at its root, about human evolution; acknowledge that humans have evolved and Adam and Eve go out the window.

    Interestingly, creationist resistance to evolutionary ideas doesn’t stop them from claiming that different human races appeared centuries after the First Couple, as descendants of Noah’s sons. No doubt this is “adaptation” rather than, you know, the e-word.

  11. The word which is translated as “kind” (min) is an interesting word in Biblical Hebrew. I am not aware of much discussion about the meaning of the word. I am not very good at Hebrew, but it seems that there is no reason to believe that “min” has a referent – that there is such a thing as a “kind”, not even as an abstraction, a class, etc.

  12. And creationist resistance to evolutionary ideas doesn`t stop them using surgery or medicines developed via evolutionary ideas. Ask them why a ‘kind, loving father’ would create 33,000 diseases(latest by DNA count) to beset mankind. Hypocrites of the finest kind.

  13. They have the standard answer that any bad things are the fault of the Fall of Adam.
    The problem is rather more subtle. It depends on having a attention span longer than that needed to grasp a TV commercial.
    If we can trust our reasoning power to infer that the eye is designed for a purpose. Then we can trust it to infer that the eye of the predator is designed for a purpose contrary to the purpose for which the eye of the prey is designed.
    If we can trust our reasoning power to infer that the laws of nature are designed – fined tuned – to make life possible. If we can trust our reasoning power to infer that the laws of thermodynamics make life impossible. Isn’t there something amiss? (BTW, there is a belief that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a consequence of the Fall of Adam, which happened after the creation of life. So entropy was not around to prevent the natural appearance of life.)