Baraminology: Difference between revisions
rv, this has been taken to the talk page, please discuss there instead of re-inserting your changes |
qualification |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 like all of creation science, is [[pseudoscience]] 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 generally considered [[pseudoscience]] by the scientific community.<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}}</ref> Despite voluminous [[evidence for evolution]] at and above the species level, baraminologists reject [[universal common descent]] and the emergence of new [[Family_(biology) | families]] and higher [[taxa]].<ref name="aboutBSG">{{cite web | title=About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref> The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
||
"creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes." (Note that baraminology is a type of creation science.) {{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/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}} </ref><ref>"the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/</ref><ref>[http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8408_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations.] National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.</ref> |
|||
==Premises and methodology== |
|||
[[evidence for evolution|Biological facts]] show that all life has [[last common ancestor|common ancestry]]. The scientific alternative to baraminology is [[cladistics]], which classifies [[species]] based on evolutionary history. |
|||
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, according to baraminology, one may conclude that two organisms are descended of a single organism 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 [[feline]]s are a single "kind," and are descended from a single ancestral gene pool (14 individuals, if the story of [[Noah]] is taken literally). However, baraminologists argue that one should not conclude that [[canine]]s and felines are related without [[Empiricism | empirical]] support for the conclusion.<ref name="rbc">{{cite journal | title=A Refined Baramin Concept | author=Wood TC et al. | journal=Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group | year=2003 | volume=3 | pages=1-14 | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36952}}</ref> |
|||
[[Image:Ligertrainer.jpg|thumb|250px|left|A [[liger]]]] |
|||
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. Thus, the original feline kind is seen as analogous to a [[liger]], containing genes for both [[tiger]] and [[lion]], or a [[cama]], containing genes for both [[camel]] and [[llama]]. Baraminology thus views diversification and speciation as inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity posited by the theory of evolution. In other words, they argue that a primal [[liger]] kind may have spread into different subpopulations, and the [[lion]] genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous, and the [[tiger]] genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous. Consequently, according to their model, after the [[population bottleneck]] caused by [[Noah's_Ark#Narrative | Noah's 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.<ref name="rbc"/> |
|||
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 [[human]]s 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, according to this methodology, 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 they conclude that the 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.<ref>{{cite web | title=Occasional Papers of the BSG | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=36813}}</ref> |
|||
==Interpretation of Biblical kinds== |
==Interpretation of Biblical kinds== |
||
| Line 17: | Line 24: | ||
{{quote|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.<br/>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.}} |
{{quote|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.<br/>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 language| 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''.<ref> |
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 language| 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''.<ref>{{cite book | title=The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Volume 5 | author=Clines , David J. A. | year=2001 | publisher=Sheffield Academic Press | page=262 | isbn=1-84127-217-5}}</ref><ref>page 392 in |
||
{{cite journal |
|||
| last = Rabin |
|||
| first = Chaim |
|||
| title = Etymological Miscellanea |
|||
| journal = Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem |
|||
| volume = 8 (Studies in the Bible, edited by Chaim Rabin) |
|||
| pages = 384-400 |
|||
| publisher = Magnes Press |
|||
| location = Jerusalem |
|||
| date = 1961}} |
|||
</ref> |
|||
Traditional interpretations, such as those of [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]],<ref name="vienna">{{cite web | title= |
Traditional interpretations, such as those of [[Augustine of Hippo|St. Augustine]],<ref name="vienna">{{cite web | title=He created each thing according to its kind | author=Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal | year=2005 | url=http://stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2006/01/24/a10066 | accessmonthday=December 7, 2008}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]],<ref>{{cite web | title=Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers | author=Tkacz, Michael W. | publisher=Gonzaga Socratic Club | year=2005 | url=http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref> [[John Calvin]],<ref>{{cite web | title=Evolution Statement | author=Office of Theology and Worship | publisher=Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) | year=1969 | url=http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref> and the [[Holy See|Vatican]],<ref>{{cite web | title=Evolution in the bible, says Vatican | author=Penner, Martin | publisher=The Australian | date=2005-12-07 | url=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html | accessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref> 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.<ref name="vienna"/> Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.<ref>{{cite web | title=Science and the Bible | publisher=Clarifying Christianity | year=2003 | url=http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml | accessmonthday=December 7 |year=2008}}</ref> |
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.<ref name="vienna"/> Others point out that, in Genesis, the manner in which the earth brings forth life is unspecified, which is compatible with evolution.<ref>{{cite web | title=Science and the Bible | publisher=Clarifying Christianity | year=2003 | url=http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml | accessmonthday=December 7 |year=2008}}</ref> |
||
==Overview== |
==Overview== |
||
Baraminology is founded upon a [[Biblical literalism| 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 Creationism|young earth creationists]] to make this Biblical interpretation scientifically appealing.<ref name="rbc"/> 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.<ref name="rbc" |
Baraminology is founded upon a [[Biblical literalism| 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 Creationism|young earth creationists]] to make this Biblical interpretation scientifically appealing.<ref name="rbc"/> 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.<ref name="rbc"/> 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.<ref name=Frair>{{cite journal | title=Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms | author=Frair, Wayne | journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal | year=2000 | volume=37 | issue=2 | pages=82-91 | url=http://web.archive.org/web/20030618153040/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm}}</ref> 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 [[morphology (biology)|morphological]] similarity.<ref>''Fundamental Biology'' (1941), ''Evolution, Creation, and Science'' (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Payne |first=J. Barton |year=1958 |month= |title= The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture | journal=Journal of the American Science Affiliation | volume=10 |issue=December 1958 | pages=17–20 | url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html |accessdate= 2007-11-26 |quote= }} [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]</ref><ref>Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC Scientists Confront Creationism]''. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.</ref> Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' [[character]]s, using methods borrowed from [[phenetics]].<ref>{{cite journal | title=The Current Status of Baraminology | author=Wood, Todd Charles | journal=Creation Research Science Quarterly Journal | year=2006 | volume=43 | issue=3 | pages=149-158 | url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm}}</ref> In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded |
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 [[morphology (biology)|morphological]] similarity.<ref>''Fundamental Biology'' (1941), ''Evolution, Creation, and Science'' (c. 1944), both by Frank Lewis Marsh</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Payne |first=J. Barton |year=1958 |month= |title= The Concept of "Kinds" In Scyipture | journal=Journal of the American Science Affiliation | volume=10 |issue=December 1958 | pages=17–20 | url=http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1958/JASA6-58Payne.html |accessdate= 2007-11-26 |quote= }} [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]</ref><ref>Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=bjYPs9siZzgC Scientists Confront Creationism]''. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.</ref> Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' [[character]]s, using methods borrowed from [[phenetics]].<ref>{{cite journal | title=The Current Status of Baraminology | author=Wood, Todd Charles | journal=Creation Research Science Quarterly Journal | year=2006 | volume=43 | issue=3 | pages=149-158 | url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm}}</ref> In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded <ref>{{cite web | title=About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods | publisher=Baraminology Study Group | url=http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html | acccessmonthday=December 7 | accessyear=2008}}</ref><ref>Robinson and Cavanaugh, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html 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 [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.]</ref>. |
||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.<ref> [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.] See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]</ref> Baraminology is a [[pseudoscience]], and has not produced any [[peer-reviewed]] [[scientific]] research,<ref>An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed database] using the keyword ''Baraminology'' produces zero results</ref> nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of [[zoology]] and [[botany]] literature since 1924.<ref>February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.</ref> [[Universal common descent]], which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is [[evidence of common descent|well-established]] and tested, and is a [[scientific theory|scientifically-verified fact]]<ref name="Theobold">{{cite web | title=29+ Evidences for Macroevolution | author=Theobald, Douglas | publisher=TalkOrigins | year=2007 | url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/}}</ref> 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 |
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.<ref> [http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/baraminology_ta.htm A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms.] See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, [http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates]</ref> Baraminology is a [[pseudoscience]], and has not produced any [[peer-reviewed]] [[scientific]] research,<ref>An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed database] using the keyword ''Baraminology'' produces zero results</ref> nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of [[zoology]] and [[botany]] literature since 1924.<ref>February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.</ref> [[Universal common descent]], which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is [[evidence of common descent|well-established]] and tested, and is a [[scientific theory|scientifically-verified fact]]<ref name="Theobold">{{cite web | title=29+ Evidences for Macroevolution | author=Theobald, Douglas | publisher=TalkOrigins | year=2007 | url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/}}</ref> 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.<ref name="aboutBSG"/> |
||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist| |
{{reflist|3}} |
||
[[Category:Creation science]] |
[[Category:Creation science]] |
||
Revision as of 22:17, 9 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 generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.[1] Despite voluminous evidence for evolution at and above the species level, baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.[2] 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, according to baraminology, one may conclude that two organisms are descended of a single organism 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, baraminologists argue that one should not conclude that canines and felines are related without empirical support for the conclusion.[3]
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. Thus, the original feline kind is seen as analogous to a liger, containing genes for both tiger and lion, or a cama, containing genes for both camel and llama. Baraminology thus views diversification and speciation as inbreeding and a loss of genetic diversity in particular populations, rather than an increase in genetic diversity posited by the theory of evolution. In other words, they argue that a primal liger kind may have spread into different subpopulations, and the lion genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous, and the tiger genes were selected in a niche where they were advantageous. Consequently, according to their model, after the population bottleneck caused by Noah's 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, according to this methodology, 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 they conclude that the 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.[3] 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.[3] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14][15] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[16] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded [17][18].
Criticism
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings.[19] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[20] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany literature since 1924.[21] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact[22] 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.[2]
References
- ^ 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) - ^ a b "About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Baraminology Study Group.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ a b c d Wood TC; et al. (2003). "A Refined Baramin Concept". Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group. 3: 1–14.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ "Occasional Papers of the BSG". Baraminology Study Group.
- ^ 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) - ^ 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.
- ^ "About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Baraminology Study Group.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|acccessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - ^ 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.