| Revision as of 23:24, 5 April 2009 editM~enwiki (talk | contribs)3,719 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:42, 7 April 2009 edit undoM~enwiki (talk | contribs)3,719 edits →History and methodologyNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| --><!-- 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"/> | --><!-- 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> |
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> <!-- | |||
| ⚫ | --><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><!-- | ||
| ⚫ | -->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, using 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><!-- | --> 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. --> | ||
| --> 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== | ==Criticism== | ||
Revision as of 07:42, 7 April 2009
| 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 descent, called "baramins". Its methodology is based on a literal creationist interpretation of "kinds" in Genesis, 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 creation science in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is not related to science, and biological facts show that all life has common ancestry. The taxonomic system widely applied in biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis.
Interpretations of Biblical kinds
The Bible mentions kinds in several passages. 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. Leviticus 19:19 is concerned with kinds of cloth, cattle, and seeds. 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. 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 St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and the Vatican, 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. Others point out that the manner in which the earth brings forth life is never specified, which is compatible with evolution. Yet others have claimed that God may directly guide evolution. Both of these views are known as theistic evolution.
History and methodology
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. 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 acceptable criteria for membership in a baramin.
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. These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics. 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. 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. Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is based on the similarity of two or more organisms' characters and uses methods borrowed from phenetics. 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.
Criticism
Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data which does not fit desired findings. Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research, nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany literature since 1924. Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact 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.
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.
References
-
"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.) The National Academies (1999). "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition". National Academy Press. Retrieved December 7 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|dateformat=ignored (help) - "the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level." http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
- Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved on 04-01-2008.
- entry for מִין min Clines , David J. A. (2001). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Vol. 5. Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262. ISBN 1-84127-217-5.
- 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.
- Mark D. Futato, #מִין min in Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. (1997). 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}}:|author=has generic name (help) - ^ Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal (2005). "Third catechesis: 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. Retrieved December 7 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|dateformat=ignored (help) - Office of Theology and Worship (1969). "Evolution Statement". Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Retrieved December 7 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|dateformat=ignored (help) - Penner, Martin (2005-12-07). "Evolution in the bible, says Vatican". The Australian. Retrieved December 7 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|dateformat=ignored (help) - "Science and the Bible". Clarifying Christianity. 2008.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help) - ^ 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) - 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) - 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.
- ^ 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" Cite error: The named reference "aboutBSG" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).