And again AiG blows it.

[Skwim]

From the current (6-25-2010) AiG feature page regarding "A Biblically Based Taxonomy?" In its all too common misrepresentation of science, AiG provides the following answer to a query about secular taxonomy.

"In modern creationists’ studies, there is a field called baraminology that works to find the boundaries of the created kinds. The field is very much in its infancy, and we strive to encourage the research. From a big picture, it boils down to a difference of how things are viewed:

1. Common features mean common ancestry.
2. Common features mean common designer.

But first, let’s jump back to a time when taxonomy (classifying living things) really developed. Swedish creationist Carl Linnaeus was the founder of the modern classification system in the 1700s. Linnaeus original classification was:
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species"
​

Contrary to AiG's assertion, Linnaeus didn't conceive of all these ranks. Initially he started out with only the Kingdom, Genus, and Species ranks. Later he added the ranks of Class and Order, to which the German evolutionist Ernst Haeckle inserted the ranks of Phylum and Family. No biggie as far as AiG mistakes go, but it is a lapse in accuracy.

"This system was a good start, but Linnaeus failed to use the Bible as the absolute starting point for each classification. To be fair, Linnaeus intended his system to be used only as a means of identification via physical characteristics, and did not have some of the modern study tools we have today. The biblical kind would be closer to the family level in many instances, but sometimes genus or even species level for others."
​

Sort of a Whatever Works approach.

"Currently, secular scientists have added several new categories in light of their ancestral “tree-based” taxonomy, but use the old system for convenience. It is now:

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Subphylum
Class
Cohort
Order
Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily
Family
Genus
Species"
​

*Sigh* Were it all this simple. Normally I wouldn't bother commenting on the author's list of ranks, but in this case he lists some rather uncommon ranks such as cohort and Infraorder, giving the appearance that this is where the complete structure of taxonomic rankings now stands. The fact is, that there is no single universal taxonomic system of ranks. Plants and animals, for example have quite different assemblages of ranks. Furthermore, this is far from a complete list of ranks. In classifying an organism only the eight main ranks are mandatory, the others being available for the discretionary use of the classifier, which is why in the species rank of animals "race," "breed," and "form" appear more than once.

Here's the working structure of ranks for animals and plants.

Animals

DOMAIN

KINGDOM
Subkingdom

PHYLUM
Subphylum
Infraphylum
Superclass

CLASS
Subclass
Infraclass
Supercohort
Cohort
Superorder
Grandorder
Mirorder

ORDER
Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily

FAMILY
Subfamily
Tribe

GENUS
Subgenus

SPECIES
Subspecies; or Race, Breed
Form
Infrasubspecies; or Race
Breed, Form.

Plants

DOMAIN

Kingdom

DIVISION/PHYLUM
Subdivision
Infradivision or Branch

CLASS
Subclass
Superorder

ORDER
Suborder

FAMILY
Subfamily
Tribe
Suntribe

GENUS
Subgenus
Section
Subsection
Series
Subseries

SPECIES
Subspecies
Variety
Subvariety
Form
Subform
Cultivar​

"This is a good reason to avoid limiting the biblical kind or baramin to modern classification systems. So, we really need to use kind in the context that it deserves—a biblical classification system."
​

Ah yes, "where we can get away with claiming 'kind' refers to a family as with the Felidae (cat) kind, that's what we'll go with, but if we get stuck into too much of a corner, as with humanity, we can declare that 'kind' represents species." So if baraminologists are truly trying to "find the boundaries of the created kinds" they obviously have a very long way to go.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Arguing with AiG is like playing chess with a pigeon. They will knock over the pieces, **** all over the board and claim victory.