Jump to content

Baraminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raeky (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 22 July 2013 (Reverted good faith edits by 91.34.247.154 (talk): The NIV, "all livestock according to their kinds". (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History
Types
Biblical cosmology
Creation science
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
Religious views
Non-creation
Evolution

Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. Its proponents claim that kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relationship to one another. .[1]


Proponents of this classification reject the concept of Common descent and that of accepted Biological classification despite the observation that distinct kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, and species of organisms share unique DNA identifiers indicating a past genetic relationship in the form of a single population of shared ancestors as the only viable way such groups could share these markers. Those identifiers might include for example retro-virus DNA insertions between Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees indicating additional DNA was inserted by the assimilation of Endogenous retroviruses DNA 'before' a speciation event between these two organisms at some distant point in their ancestral line.


Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Creation science is considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community,[2][3][4][5] which accepts the evidence for the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

Interpretations of Biblical kinds

The Bible mentions kinds in several passages. Genesis 1:24–25 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.

The Creationist Orchard theory represents the way creationists approach natural selection; within the boundaries of the original baramin, most young Earth creationists acknowledge that it plays a role.

Genesis 7:13–16 states that the cattle are a kind. In Deuteronomy 14:11–18 the owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Modern versions of the Old Testament are translations of the Biblical Hebrew text. 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. Several other words are translated into English with the word kind, including the Leviticus 19:19 usage: כִלְאַיֶם kila'im. 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". 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.[6][7][8]

History

One literal creationist interpretation of the Bible is that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that consequently each original animal had no ancestry, common or otherwise. Baraminology emerged from an effort by young earth creationists to make this interpretation scientifically appealing to those with a limited or misinformed understanding of how genetic diversity occurs.[9] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition.[9] In 1990 Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of acceptable criteria for membership in a baramin.[9]

ReMine's work specified 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.[10] These groups correspond to the concepts of holophyly, monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics.[11]

Classification methodology

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over time. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[12][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 based on the similarity of two or more organisms' characters and uses methods borrowed from phenetics.[16]

Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry. Others point to inter-fertility capability as a possible indicator.[17] In all cases, methods found to place humans and other primates into the same baramin have been discarded.[18][19] [20]

Baraminologist Roger W. Sanders advocates a subjective approach to classification over a measurement-based one:[21]

The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and for post-study rejection of data not supporting desired findings.[20] [22] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and so this scientific theory is commonly described by biologists as the fact of evolution.[23] However neither cladistics, the field devoted to classifying living things according to the ancestral relationships between them, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[24]

Despite voluminous evidence for evolution at above and below the species level (population variation within one species and between one generation and another), baraminologists reject universal common descent and the emergence of new families and higher taxa.[24]

See also

References

  1. ^ Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept
  2. ^ The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press. Archived from the original on 7 December 2008. Retrieved December 7, 2008. creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)[dead link]
  3. ^ "Evolution". the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  4. ^ "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved April 1, 2008. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  5. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7 instead.
  6. ^ Clines, David J. A. (2001). "מִין min". The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Vol. 5. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262. ISBN 1-84127-217-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  7. ^ page 262 in "Studies in the Bible" by Chaim Rabin = Rabin, Chaim (1961). "Etymological Miscellanea". Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. 8. Jerusalem: Magnes Press: 384–400. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  8. ^ Mark D. Futato (1997). "#מִין min". In Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. (ed.). New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. pp. 934–935. ISBN 0-310-20217-5. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  9. ^ a b c 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); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  10. ^ Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal. 37 (2): 82–91. Archived from the original on 2003–06–18. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  11. ^ Gishlick, Alan (2006). "Baraminology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 26 (4): 17–21. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  12. ^ Marsh, Frank Lewis (1941). Fundamental Biology. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  13. ^ Marsh, Frank Lewis (1944). Evolution, Creation, and Science. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  14. ^ Payne, J. Barton (1958). "The Concept of "Kinds" In Scripture". Journal of the American Science Affiliation. 10 (2 (December 1958)): 17–20. Retrieved 2007–11–26. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]
  15. ^ Cracraft, Joel (1984). "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". In Godfrey, Laurie R. (ed.). Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393301540. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  16. ^ Wood, Todd Charles (2006). "The Current Status of Baraminology". Creation Research Science Quarterly. 43 (3): 149–158. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  17. ^ Don Batten, Ph.D, ed. (2004). "Chapter 7". The Revised and Expanded Answers Book. ISBN 0-89051-161-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  18. ^ "About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Baraminology Study Group. Retrieved December 7, 2008. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  19. ^ Robinson; 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 {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  20. ^ a b "A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology – Classification of Created Organisms". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  21. ^ Sanders, Roger W. "A Quick Method for Developing a Cognitum System Exemplified Using Flowering Plants" (12.2MB PDF). Occas. Papers of the BSG (16): 1–63. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  22. ^ See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, "A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates". {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  23. ^ Theobald, Douglas (2007). "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". TalkOrigins. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  24. ^ a b "About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Baraminology Study Group. Retrieved December 7, 2008. 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 {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baraminology&oldid=565324983"