Baraminology: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Curtis Clark (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 128.12.137.80 (talk) to last version by Emw2012 |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
--> Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in [[Genesis]], especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. The link is a series of pages on the subject. The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
--> Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in [[Genesis]], especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is [[pseudoscience]] and is unrelated to [[science]]: modern [[evidence for evolution|biological facts]] have shown that all life descended from one [[last common ancestor|common ancestor]].<ref name = "NAS">[http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html National Academy of Sciences]. The link is a series of pages on the subject. Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.</ref> The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
||
==Interpretation of Biblical kinds== |
==Interpretation of Biblical kinds== |
||
Revision as of 13:56, 17 September 2008
| Part of a series on | ||||
| Creationism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
| History | ||||
| Types | ||||
| Biblical cosmology | ||||
| Creation science | ||||
| Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
| Religious views | ||||
|
||||
In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.
Interpretation of Biblical kinds
The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:
24: And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. The Hebrew word מִין min is used exclusively in a set phrase of the form לְ l+מִין min+possessive pronoun suffix, which is translated as after their/his/her kind. (A few other words are translated into English with the word kind, such as in Leviticus 19:19, which speaks of כִלְאַיֶם kila'im of cloth, cattle, and seeds. The word min is never used in relation to humans, but the Greek word γένος genos is used in 2 Maccabees 7:28 "... and so was mankind made likewise". ) Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is. The fact that kind is used in this set phrase, among other reasons, has led to the hypothesis that it is not a referential noun in Biblical Hebrew, but derived from לְמִינֶה l'mineh = of him/herself, of themselves.[2]
Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine,[3] Thomas Aquinas,[4] John Calvin,[5] and the Vatican,[6] hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the evolutionary model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.[3] Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.[7]
Overview
Baraminology is founded upon a Biblically literal interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort by young earth creationists to make this view scientifically appealing.[8] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of an acceptable definition.[8] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things.[9] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in phylogenetics
Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[10] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[11] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[12] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded [13][14].
Criticism
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which do not fit desired findings.[15] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[16] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany literature since 1924.[17] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact[18] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists [19].
Notes
- ^ National Academy of Sciences. The link is a series of pages on the subject. Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.
- ^ entry for מִין min, page 262, volume 5, of The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, David J. A. Clines, editor, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, ISBN1-84127-217-5. Also: page 392 of Chaim Rabin, "Etymological Miscellanea", pages 384-400, Studies in the Bible, edited by Chaim Rabin, volume 8 of Scripta Hierosolymitana, Jerusalem: Magnes Press of the Hebrew University, 1961
- ^ a b Third catechesis by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn on December 4, 2005 in the cathedral of St. Stephan in Vienna.
- ^ Michael W. Tkacz (2005). "Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers". Gonzaga Socratic Club.
- ^ Office of Theology and Worship (1969). "Evolution Statement". Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
- ^ Martin Penner (2005-12-07). "Evolution in the bible, says Vatican". The Australian.
- ^ "Science and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity. 2003.
- ^ a b Wood et al., A Refined Baramin Concept
- ^ Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quaterly Journal. 37 (2): 82–91.
- ^ Fundamental Biology (1941), Evolution, Creation, and Science (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh
- ^ Payne, J. Barton (1958). "The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture". Journal of the American Science Affiliation. 10 (December 1958): 17–20. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading] - ^ Wood, Todd Charles (2006). "The Current Status of Baraminology". Creation Research Science Quarterly Journal. 43 (3): 149–158.
- ^ Baraminology Study Group: About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
- ^ Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. ...We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates. See also A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.
- ^ A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates
- ^ An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword Baraminology produces zero results
- ^ February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.
- ^ Theobald, Douglas (2007). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". TalkOrigins.
- ^ About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods. Phrases to note are: "The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because cladistic analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence" and "A good example is Archaeopteryx, which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds"