Baraminology: Difference between revisions
premises and methodology |
Restoring original text, which distinguished facts from opinions |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
--> Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in [[Genesis]], especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology is a sub-field of [[creation science]], and |
--> Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in [[Genesis]], especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology is a sub-field of [[creation science]], and like all of creation science, is [[pseudoscience]] and is not related to [[science]]: [[evidence for evolution|biological facts]] show that all life has [[last common ancestor|common ancestry]]..<ref name = "NAS">{{cite web | title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | author=The National Academies | year=1999 | publisher=National Academy Press | url=http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}} Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.</ref> The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
||
==Premises and methodology== |
==Premises and methodology== |
||
Revision as of 16:26, 7 December 2008
| Part of a series on | ||||
| Creationism | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||
| History | ||||
| Types | ||||
| Biblical cosmology | ||||
| Creation science | ||||
| Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
| Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Baraminology is a creationist 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. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology is a sub-field of creation science, and like all of creation science, is pseudoscience and is not related to science: biological facts show that all life has common ancestry..[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.
Premises and methodology
Baraminology is based on the belief that universal common descent of all organisms on Earth is a conclusion that must be supported by evidence, and not one that may be fairly extrapolated from theory alone. In other words, one may conclude that two organisms are descended of a single organism if and only if there is evidence to support that conclusion. In the context of baraminology, this generally means that some but not all organisms share common descent. Thus, one might conclude that all felines are a single "kind," and are descended from a single ancestral gene pool (14 individuals, if the story of Noah is taken literally). However, one should not conclude that canines and felines are related without empirical support for the conclusion. [2]
One key difference between the baraminological concept of common descent and the evolutionary model of common descent is that baraminology posits greater genetic diversity within the original kinds, and view diversification and speciation as inbreeding, and the loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity posited by the theory of evolution. Thus, the primal "feline" population may have included both "tiger" and "lion" genes that mixed freely. After the population bottleneck at the flood, populations spread, and variation and natural selection led to speciation, not through the increase in genetic information, but through the adaption of a species to its environment by the loss of other disadvantageous traits through variation and natual selection.[3]
As methodology to establish the limits of common descent, advocates of baraminology use "biological character spaces" -- a multidimensional space in which the dimensions represent particular biological character traits. The "character space" for humans would thus include the spectrum of biological characteristics shared by all humans. The same for chimps, snails, etc.
For it to be possible for two organisms to be related, the two character spaces must be linked by viable, hypothetical organisms. If there is a gap between the two organisms in which no organism could be viable, then those two organisms should be seen as being in separate "kinds." The Baraminology Study Group has put out a small number of papers applying and evaluating this methodology.[4]
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.[5][6]
Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine,[7] Thomas Aquinas,[8] John Calvin,[9] and the Vatican,[10] 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.[7] Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.[11]
Overview
Baraminology is founded upon a literal interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that therefore these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged from an effort by young earth creationists to make this Biblical interpretation scientifically appealing.[12] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14] 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.[15][16] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[17] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded [18][19].
Criticism
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.[20] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[21] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany literature since 1924.[22] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact[23] 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 [24].
Notes
- ^ The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) Note that baraminology is a type of creation science. - ^ http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=YErB7ZuitilFliTOkUo6AbzoLiq3UbJl%2fSj%2fA99NBg4%3d
- ^ http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=S9wwFIc%2fn8vsLXny2oBiwH0Iot%2fAPSi9G50i8Zsdq8U%3d
- ^ http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813
- ^ Clines , David J. A. (2001). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 5. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262. ISBN 1-84127-217-5.
- ^ page 392 in Rabin, Chaim (1961). "Etymological Miscellanea". Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 8 (Studies in the Bible, edited by Chaim Rabin). Jerusalem: Magnes Press: 384–400.
- ^ a b Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal (2005). "He created each thing according to its kind".
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help) - ^ Tkacz, Michael W. (2005). "Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers". Gonzaga Socratic Club.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ Office of Theology and Worship (1969). "Evolution Statement". Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ Penner, Martin (2005-12-07). "Evolution in the bible, says Vatican". The Australian.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ "Science and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity. 2008.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help) - ^ a b Wood et al., A Refined Baramin Concept
- ^ Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quarterly 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] - ^ Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.
- ^ 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"