| Revision as of 05:59, 10 April 2009 editChristian Skeptic (talk | contribs)984 edits →Interpretations of Biblical kinds: lower case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:39, 15 February 2020 edit undoPaleoNeonate (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,743 edits Restore rev. 838799364Tag: Replaced | ||
| (614 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{creationism2}} | |||
| '''Baraminology''' is a ] system for classifying life into groups having no ], called "baramins". Its methodology is based on a literal creationist interpretation of "kinds" in ], especially a distinction between humans and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology developed as a subfield of ] in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Like all of creation science, baraminology is ] and is not related to ],<!-- | |||
| {{R to section}} | |||
| #### This last sentence is HEAVILY cited, and has been heavily discussed at | |||
| #### the talk page. Spontaneous changes to it are usually quickly reverted, so | |||
| #### if you dislike the wording, do come to the talk page to help make it better. | |||
| {{R with history}} | |||
| --><ref name = "NAS"> | |||
| "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 | accessdate=December 7 2008 | dateformat=mdy}} </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> National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.</ref><!-- | |||
| --> and ] show that all life has ]. The ] system widely applied in ] is ], which classifies ] based on how closely the various organisms are related to one another.<ref>“This is a good place to reiterate that any phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis about how the various organisms in the tree are related to one another. The best hypothesis is the one that best fits all the available data. A phylogenetic hypothesis may be modified when new evidence compels systematists to revise their trees.” {{cite book | title= BIOLOGY (textbook) | author= Campbell, N. A., et. al. | year=2008 | publisher= Pearson Education, Inc. | page=547 | isbn=536-96944-6}}</ref> | |||
| ==Interpretations of Biblical kinds== | |||
| The ] mentions kinds in several passages. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things: | |||
| {{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. 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.}} | |||
| Baraminologists understand verses 24-25 to mean that a kind is determined by it's offspring. For instance the offspring of a lion and a tiger (a ] or ]) is of the same kind as the lion and the tiger. Thus, in general, the 'kind' is thought to be of the "family" level in standard taxonomy rather than species.<ref>http://creation.com/response-to-pbs/nova-evolution-series-episode-1-darwins-dangerous-idea#kinds</ref><ref>Baraminology taxonomic concepts and methods http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=37891</ref> | |||
| Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of ]. In ] 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. ] 19:19 is concerned with kinds of cloth, cattle, and seeds. | |||
| Modern versions of the Old Testament are translations of the ] 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 ] word γένος ''genos'' is used in ] 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 ], but derived from לְמִינֶה ''l'mineh'' = ''of him/herself, of themselves''.<ref>entry for מִין ''min'' {{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 262 in "Studies in the Bible" by Chaim Rabin = {{cite journal | last = Rabin | first = Chaim | title = Etymological Miscellanea | journal = Scripta Hierosolymitana: Publications of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem | volume = 8 | pages = 384-400 | publisher = Magnes Press | location = Jerusalem | date = 1961}} </ref><ref>Mark D. Futato, #מִין ''min'' in {{cite book|volume=2| pages=934-935|title=New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis|author= Willem A. VanGemeren, ed.|location=Grand Rapids, Michigan|publisher=Zondervan Publishing House|year=1997|isbn=0-310-20217-5}}</ref> The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew. | |||
| Traditional interpretations, such as those of ],<ref name="vienna">{{cite web | title=Third catechesis: 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> ],<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 | accessdate=December 7 2008 | dateformat=mdy}}</ref> ],<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 | accessdate=December 7 2008 | dateformat=mdy}}</ref> and the ],<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 | accessdate=December 7 2008 | dateformat=mdy}}</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 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 the manner in which the earth brings forth life is never specified, 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> Yet others have claimed that God may directly guide evolution. Both of these views are known as ]. | |||
| ==History and methodology== | |||
| One ] ] interpretation of the ] is that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by ] and that consequently each original animal had no ancestry, common or otherwise. Baraminology emerged from an effort by ] to make this interpretation scientifically appealing.<!-- | |||
| --><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><!-- | |||
| --><!-- some background to Marsh's proposal would be nice, ie the state of science and perception of evolution, advances in biology/evolution/cladistics/ID, etc. --> The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by ], but was criticized for a lack of formal definition.<ref name="rbc"/> In 1990 ] and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology in pursuit of acceptable criteria for membership in a baramin.<ref name="rbc"/> | |||
| 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. <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 ], ], and ] used in ]. Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over time. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and ] 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 ], 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= }} </ref><ref>Cracraft, Joel. "Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism". Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. ''''. New York: W.W. Norton & Company: 1984.</ref><!-- | |||
| --> Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is based on the similarity of two or more organisms' ]s and uses methods borrowed from ].<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><!-- | |||
| --> Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates lack of common ancestry. 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, . ''...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 </ref><!-- this section needs a better structure, rather than being a thinly disguised list of criteria. --> | |||
| ==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> See also the last two sentences of the abstract of Robinson and Cavanaugh, </ref> Baraminology is a ], and has not produced any ] ] research,<ref>An exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication using the keyword ''Baraminology'' produces zero results</ref> nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of ] and ] literature since 1924.<ref>February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.</ref> ], which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is ] and tested, and is a ]<ref name="Theobold">{{cite web | title=29+ Evidences for Macroevolution | author=Theobald, Douglas | publisher=TalkOrigins | year=2007 | url=http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/}}</ref> However, neither ], the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the ] on ] are accepted by baraminologists.<ref name="aboutBSG">. Phrases to note are: ''"The mere assumption that the transformation had to occur because ] analysis places it at a hypothetical ancestral node does not constitute empirical evidence"'' and ''"A good example is ], which likely represents its own unique baramin, distinct from both dinosaurs and modern birds"''</ref> | |||
| Despite voluminous ] at and above the species level, baraminologists reject ] and the emergence of new ] and higher ].<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 | accessdate=December 7 2008 | dateformat=mdy}}</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 12:39, 15 February 2020
Redirect to:
- To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.
- With history: This is a redirect from a page containing substantive page history. This page is kept as a redirect to preserve its former content and attributions. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated), nor delete this page.
- This template should not be used for redirects having some edit history but no meaningful content in their previous versions, nor for redirects created as a result of a page merge (use {{R from merge}} instead), nor for redirects from a title that forms a historic part of Misplaced Pages (use {{R with old history}} instead).