'Baraminology', also referred to as 'typology', is a
creationist system that classifies animals into
created kinds according to the account of
creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the
Bible. These kinds are presumed to be isolated from one another.
[1] Nearly all
scientists consider Baraminology, like all of
creation science, to be
pseudoscience and unfit to be presented as
science.
[National Academy of Sciences]
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.
Baraminology borrowed its key terminology, and much of its methodology from the field of Discontinuity Systematics founded by
Walter ReMine in 1990.
Classification
ReMine (1990) coined the four key terms, with Greek prefixes, to distinguish kinds or groups: ''holobaramin'', ''monobaramin'', ''apobaramin'', and ''polybaramin''. They have similarities to the terms ''
monophyly'', ''
paraphyly'' and ''
polyphyly'' used in
phylogenetics.
Holobaramin
A holobaramin is an entire group (past and present) sharing a common
ancestry, and therefore a genetic relationship. For example,
humans form a holobaramin, since (in Creationist beliefs) they were created as a single kind and therefore share no ancestral or genetic relationship with other animals.
[Frair, Wayne, Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine, retrieved 26 Feb 2007)] In
evolutionary theory, by contrast, all life forms one holobaramin.
Monobaramin
A monobaramin is any part of a holobaramin. So, for example,
dogs could be seen as a monobaramin from the holobaramin of the ''
dog kind'' which also includes
wolves. However, the term is very loosely defined, and even a few individuals of a species count as a monobaramin.
[Frair, Wayne,Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine)]
Apobaramin
An apobaramin is any number of complete holobaramins grouped together. For example, all animals together would form an apobaramin since (in Creationist beliefs) they were not a single kind of animal at the moment of their creation.
[Frair, Wayne,Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine)] This concept does not exist in evolutionary biology, as all organisms share a common ancestor.
Polybaramin
A polybaramin is a group made up of parts of different holobaramins. For example, the
mammals currently alive in North America would form a polybaramin. Like monobaramin, this is also loosely defined, with Wayne Frair giving as an example "representatives of all human races, the two species of United States box turtles, one dog, one lion, one tiger, and one sunflower plant."
[Frair, Wayne,Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 37 No 2 pp82-91 September 2000 (from the Wayback Machine)] Like the other concepts, no equivalent exists in evolutionary biology.
Distinction of Created Kinds
The question of determining the boundaries between baramin is a subject of much discussion and debate among creation "biologists." A number of criteria have been presented.
Early efforts at demarcation
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.
In 1990 (and again in 1993), Walter ReMine proposed various criteria that are individually ''sufficient'' 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.
Baramin Distance
To refine this method, the concept of "Baramin Distance" was proposed. The initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the
Catarrhine primates, including genetic tests and tests based on ecology and morphology. However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the two groups are separate,
[2] so methods that did not separate humans from primates were rejected.
[3]
Criticism
Baraminology is not accepted by the
scientific community. It has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.
[4] Baraminology has not produced any
peer-reviewed scientific research,
[5] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of
zoology and
botany since 1924.
[6]
Instead,
universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific theory
[7] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor.
However, both
cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and the
scientific consensus on
transitional fossils are rejected by baraminologists.
[8]
Notes
1. Wood, Wise, Sanders, and Doran, A Refined Baramin Concept
2. Baraminology Study Group: About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
3. 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.
4. 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
5. A exhaustive search of the largest scientific publication database using the keyword ''Baraminology'' producees zero results
6. February 2007 search of Biological Abstracts.
7. Theobald, Douglas, ''29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
8. 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."''
See also
★
Creation biology
★
Frank Lewis Marsh
★
Pre-Adamite
★
Cladistics
External links
★
A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms. (Thomas, August 2006)
★
★
About the BSG: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods
★
''Ligers 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?'', Don Batten, Creation ex nihilo, 22(3):28–33, June 2000
★
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
