THIS IS THE SECOND OF A CONTINUING SERIES examining what is being passed off as science on creationist websites.

The topic of this essay is “baraminology,” as discussed in the article Baraminology–Classification of Created Organisms, by Wayne Frair, which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000), and appears on the christiananswers.net website.

Why does science need a new method of classification? Aren’t scientists doing an adequate job with their traditional approaches? Apparently not.

In response to the perceived failings of scientists, creation “scientists” have, in the past 20 years or so, developed a new system for classifying organisms.

A new method for classification; well, that by itself isn’t a problem for science. The more the merrier. New approaches sometimes explain things better than old ones.

But, is “baraminology” really a new approach that will provide science with better answers? Lets take a closer look at what it is and how it is applied.

First, what is the difference between this new method and the traditional method used by science for over 150 years?

The key to this new method of classification is revealed right in the title of the article–Classification of Created Organisms!

A Little History

The above-cited article notes:

The four terms, holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin formally and publicly were introduced by Walter ReMine (1990) at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA 30 July 1990. Later in the week of the same conference Kurt Wise (1990), who had had extensive interchange with ReMine since 1983, endorsed ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, wedded it to his own young-earth creation position, and stated that the name of this new systematic procedure was “baraminology” [emphasis added]. Source.

From reading the article, the basic difference between traditional science and baraminology appears to boil down to this: Traditional science examines the world as it is, while baraminology interprets the data in terms of religious belief.

Modern science examines organisms and follows the data wherever it leads. Creation “scientists” examine the same organisms and formulate a classification scheme designed to accommodate the Biblical version of creation, right down to a young earth and the global flood–in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

This is shown in a comparison of these two diagrams:

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

The article which we are examining notes:

To repeat and expand this somewhat further, the Darwinian macroevolution model is represented by a single tree of relationships, every form of life being related to every other form of life (Figure 1). In the baraminic model there is a forest of trees without connecting roots (Figure 2). One of these rootless trees would have branches representing only human diversification, another for canids, another for felids, etc.

For people reared on an evolutionary diet the above menu can be difficult to swallow and digest because students of biology have been taught to think genetic relationship rather than genetic discontinuity. But there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaraminic group to any other holobaraminic group. This is true for both extinct and extant types of life.

So, there is a lack of evidence for connecting any holobaramin to any other. Why? Because the Bible speaks of “kinds” — which are, as Frair writes, “categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week.” And to keep the kinds separate, as per the Biblical creation account, they cannot be represented by a single tree–as they are separate and unrelated “kinds”! Because of this a priori belief, any evidence to the contrary must be ignored, denied, or somehow explained away no matter what.

(Interlude: Doesn’t sound like science to me.)

But wait, there’s more! Frair provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines:

Guidelines

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. …

6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. [Emphasis added]

The article claims, “ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.” Perhaps. But discontinuity systematics, coincidentally, comes up with the same answers as baraminology! For all practical purposes baraminology and discontinuity systematics can be considered interchangeable, even though some efforts are being made to separate them.

This is not science! The bolded passages in the guidelines above offer a real clue as to where this new branch of “science” is coming from.

To be fair, I checked another article; a relevant quote:

Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) “every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered. Source.

Conclusion

Baraminology is not science; it is not even close. Baraminology is apologetics (defense of religious belief), pure and simple. It is religion trying to masquerade as pseudoscience hoping to be passed off as real science. The ultimate goal, as we see from these articles, is to impose a Biblical view of creation onto traditional science.

Finally, the Frair article notes: “For those who have been steeped in Linnaean taxonomy and evolutionary thinking, discontinuity systematics may appear to be a preposterous proposal.”

At last! Something we can all agree on!

A Look at Creation “Science” — Part VI
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part V
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part IV
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part III
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part II
A Look at Creation “Science” — Part I