I disagree with current lines of descent as you've presented, yes. The exact match of "kind" to family, clade or other level in biology is unneeded in my opinion.
How is it you are in a position to disagree with the science? Have you other science of your own that challenges all the research out there? Have you shared it with other scientists, and what do they have to say about it? In other words, what scientific veracity does it have in order to go against the accepted findings of current science?
You do realize that if anyone has something that actually can stand against it, that would be huge, revelatory news in the world of science and that would make that person world famous? If that data is there, any scientistic would love to be the one to discover it. Their name would be remembered by history, like Charles Darwin. That would be considered a hugely beneficial thing to science to find fatal flaws to current theory. You understand that, don't you?
Yes, I agree with much of current evolutionary science while rejecting some of its conclusions/assumptions/uniformitarian assumptions/godless (literally, there was no creator/abiogenesis) assumptions).
First off, science does not conclude there was no creator. That is 100% false. Science makes no claims about God either way. They are not interested in theological questions, beyond the actual science which only examines the material data found on the ground. If "science" were to make such a proclamation, they are no longer doing science, but instead doing religion.
What science does is simply show you what they found when investigating the evidences, and how they fit together. The data does show natural causes all the way through the various processes which lead to the evolution of all animal life forms from a single animal life form through various branches of evolution. That is just what the data shows, and can be verified, again and again and again from multiple fields of the sciences. It makes no statements or claims about God and how the data affects that for people. That part is outside of science, and is up to us.
Our job is not to challenge the science, as you or I are not qualified in the sciences in order to actually do that. If you want to challenge the science, "disagree with", etc., you must do it scientifically, not religiously. What our job then as people interested in where our religious perspectives fit in, is to take the facts as presented to us, and then figure out how we fit our beliefs in with the facts.
At that point, we have two basic choices. One, we take that data and see how that fits in with what we currently believe, and if there is a conflict, then our job is to reexamine our beliefs, not deny the science as we are not qualified for that, at least I'm not, and I'll hazard a guess you are not either. The second choice is to dig in with our beliefs and refuse to consider them the weak link in the chain, and instead attack science, attempt to discredit it, state unqualified scientific opinions of our own in order to create an illusion that we have just as much right to an opinion about these matters as the experts in their fields, etc.
When we take the first position, then it becomes easier for faith to grow and us along with it. The conflict between our religious beliefs and science goes away. "I guess I need to walk around another way" becomes the natural, relatively easier response as opposed to, "Help me get rid of this boulder on the path with an explosive force so I don't have to be creative and walk around it." The latter response takes far more effort, and ultimately becomes an exercise in futility when that boulder in the path is actually
an entire mountain range. What comes to mind is a quote from Acts, "It is harder for thee to kick against the pricks".
My challenge to you, is to consider that what you are doing in denying the science, which you are in fact doing and have stated so multiple times including this post (this is not a strawman at all), is actually harmful to faith. It's a refusal to listen to what wonders we can know about this world that others previously never had the gift of the sciences to expose for them like this. This does not diminish faith at all. It makes it more glorious and wonderful than simply interpreting a creation story which speaks theologically, as if it were intended to be scientific. There is NO indication theologically it should be read that way, and it certainly creates a conflict with the facts when read that way.
A refusal to examines one's beliefs as the area that needs to be examined far more than the science does, harms one's faith, IMHO based upon personal experience. The science doesn't need your challenge. Your theological belief structures do. And there are other Christians you can turn to help you understand how they deal with it, without needing to "kick against the pricks".
A thought just occurred to me now while typing this, that the science-denialism of fundamentalists, is a psychological projection. It is saying, the science needs to be re-examined, while what is really going on is an internal voice saying "it's my beliefs that need to be re-examined". By externalizing this, by making science the one who must be wrong, it avoids self-reflection. We do this with everything about ourselves we don't like, and project the guilt of ourselves upon others to avoid facing our own internal war. I believe what I just said has merit.
Fortunately for my position as a religious person, the science has many holes in it.
But it doesn't. It's your beliefs that you need to re-examine that has the holes in it.
I do NOT disavow other sciences with far less problematic positions, say, geography/geometrics, so to accuse me of being non-scientific is unfair.
I did not say you reject all the sciences. So long as they don't present a possible challenge to your beliefs you don't want to re-examine, you seem to be fine with that. But that indicates a lack of integrity to do so. It is the very definition of cherry picking, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Hence, why I say, this all harms faith, rather than protect it as we might like to assume, deceiving ourselves. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard to kick against the pricks". It is hard to deny the science.
