World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Baraminology

Article Id: WHEBN0000643272
Reproduction Date:

Title: Baraminology  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Creation science, Creationism, Creationism/Creationism topics, Sternberg peer review controversy, Pseudoscience
Collection: Creation Science, Pseudoscience
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Baraminology

Baraminology is a

  • A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. (Thomas, August 2006)
  • About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
  • , Don Batten, Creation ex nihilo, 22(3):28–33, June 2000Ligers and wholphins? What next? Crazy mixed-up animals … what do they tell us? They seem to defy man-made classification systems — but what about the created ‘kinds’ in Genesis?

External links

  1. ^ Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ [Note this version appears to have been OCR-scanned without proofreading]
  7. ^ a b c d
  8. ^ a b c
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^ An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword Baraminology producees zero results
  12. ^ February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.
  13. ^ Theobald, Douglas, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
  14. ^ 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."
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^

Notes

See also

Some techniques employed in Baraminology have been used to demonstrate evolution, thereby calling baraminological conclusions into question.[15][16][17]

In contrast, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific theory.[13] However, both cladistics (the field devoted to classifying living things according to the ancestral relationships between them) and the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by baraminologists.[14]

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[10] Baraminology has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[11] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[12]

Criticism

ReMine's discontinuity systematics 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.[9] These groups correspond to the concepts of holophyly, monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics.[8]

Terminology

Alan Gishlick, reviewing the work of baraminologists in 2006, found it to be surprisingly rigorous and internally consistent but concluded that the methods did not work.[8]

In 1990, Kurt Wise introduced baraminology as an adaptation of discontinuity systematics, particularly the concurrent work of Walter ReMine, that was more in keeping with young Earth creationism. Wise advocated using the Bible as a source of systematic data.[7] Barminology and its associated concepts have been criticised by scientists and creationists for lacking formal structure. Consequently, in 2003 Wise and other creationists proposed a refined baramin concept in the hope of developing a broader creationist model of biology.[7]

Marsh also originated "discontinuity systematics", the idea that there are boundaries between different animals that cannot be crossed with the consequence that there would be discontinuities in the history of life and limits to common ancestry.[8]

The word "baramin" was coined in 1941 by Frank Marsh. Marsh never clearly defined the word and used it interchangeably in his writings with the word "kind", in reference to the phrase "after its kind" found repeatedly in Genesis.[7] Marsh's interpretation of Genesis was that each kind or baramin had been directly created by God and that only members of the same kind could reproduce, with their offspring also being members of the same kind.[7]

History

In 1990 (and again in 1993), Walter ReMine proposed various criteria that he said were each sufficient by themselves to establish continuity between any two organisms. His criteria include (a) the ability to interbreed the two organisms, or (b) the ability to experimentally demonstrate comparable biological transformation in living organisms today, or (c) a clear-cut lineage between the two organisms. These criteria can be used in various combinations, among various organisms, to establish greater and greater continuity. He argued that the failure of all these methods is required in order to establish discontinuity.

There is some uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds." Creationist Brian Nelson claimed "While the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have arisen." However, Russell Mixter, another creationist writer, said that "One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis."[6]

The traditional criterion for membership in a baramin was the ability to hybridize and create viable offspring. Frank Lewis Marsh coined the term baramin in his book Fundamental Biology (1941) and expanded on the concept in Evolution, Creation, and Science (c. 1944), in which he asserted that hybridization was a sufficient condition for being members of the same baramin. However, he asserted that it was not a necessary condition, as observed speciation events among drosophila had been shown to cut off hybridization.

The concept of the "kind" or "baramin" originates from a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis 1:12-24:

Early efforts at demarcation

The question of determining the boundaries between baramin is a subject of much discussion and debate among creationists. A number of criteria have been presented.

Distinction of created kinds

Contents

  • Distinction of created kinds 1
    • Early efforts at demarcation 1.1
  • History 2
  • Terminology 3
  • Criticism 4
  • See also 5
  • Notes 6
  • External links 7

Baraminology borrowed its key terminology, and much of its methodology from the field of Discontinuity Systematics founded by Walter ReMine in 1990.

The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The combination is not meaningful in Hebrew. It is intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible, and especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.

[5][4][3][2]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.