Ever since those wild days with the "Alaska Rabbit" video, where we could watch and listen to YEC leader, Kent Hovind . . . .
. . . expound on his view of the Genesis verses that touch on "Kind", I've been waiting for the definitive confirmation that Hovind's interpretration will work just fine for BioLogos supporters!
The principle texts get a little repetitive, but here they are:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 - "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
Gen 1:21 - "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
Gen 1:24 - "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
While Kent Hovind didn't put it in the words that I'm about to use, these words are certainly consistent with an evolutionist's viewpoint.
While YEC's have been keen to interpret "his kind", "her kind" or "their kind" to mean a divinely arbitrary definition of what a kind is.
Hind put just the right spin on the word when he said (here I'm paraphrasing):
"If two creatures can't produce fertile offspring, then they are clearly not of the same kind!"
It's not so much "God's 'big box' kind applied to individual animals. It's the "kind" of the animals that is being tested or confirmed by the success of their mating. Like "kinds" can perpetuate the next generation. Animals not of the same kind cannot.
As specified in @Swami's post above:
"As AIG puts it, https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/1
"A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind."
But there are lots of creatures that YEC's have been labeling of the same kind that are not able to reproduce fertile offspring!
Crows and Pigeons? Same kind? Nope.
Horses and Donkeys? Same kind? Nope.
The interesting thing is that the feline Order of animals is rather stunning in their genetic similarities. Lions and Tigers can produce fertile offspring. They were categorized as different species during a time when we didn't know genetics very well, and Lions and Tigers not only look very different, they act very different. So they were considered two different species.
But Biblically, and perhaps by the Late Mehr's own definition, they could be considered of "one kind"!