Skwim
Veteran Member
As we've all been long aware, the creationist "kind" has never been well defined. . . heck, it's never been defined at all. In an effort to get around the problems in doing so the "science" of baraminology was created, with the term "baramin" standing in place for the onerous "kind." Accordingly, Biblical kinds were dealt with in a number of odd ways, most of which depended on the creation of all sorts of new baraminological(?) concepts: polybaramins, holobaramins, archebaramins, etc.. Of course, those of us not caught up in the of clutches of creationism don't expect anything of value to come out of such pseudo-science, but I did happen upon one interesting item, which I've excerpted as the last two paragraphs below. As a point of interest I've also included several remarks by the authors that address the lack of definition of "kind" in creationist literature.
First, fixity of species would be a poor design principle if God intended for the revelation to persist. God knew that sin would enter His creation, and He knew that the consequences of sin would bring drastic changes to the Creation. Thus, any organisms that were perfectly adapted to their environments and fixed in that adaptation could only die in the face of environmental changes brought on by sin. In order for God s revelation in creation to persist, organisms must be adaptable to the inevitable environmental changes. Fixity of species would lead to catastrophic extinction and thus the elimination of the revelation in creation (apart from God intervening by re-creation, for which we find no biblical support).
Rather than fixity of species, we advocate the persistence of baramins [kinds]. Rather than asserting that species must necessarily occupy a very narrow region of biological character space (i.e.are fixed), we argue that God would need to create organisms with great morphological flexibility and adaptability in order for baramins to survive (persist)to the present. The only need of fixity would be for the revelation of God to persist. We believe that a reasonable theological argument could be made for persistence rather than fixity of species,beginning with two Biblical premises.
Source: "A REFINED BARAMIN CONCEPT" from Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group.( PDF file and "Quick View" via Google.)
No fixity of species = species can evolve, and they're not talking micro-evolution here. Of course the word "evolution" is never used, but that's to be expected. Conservapedia, one of creation's cheer leaders, acknowledges the article by citing its nomenclature, but ignores its conclusion. The same is true of other creationist sites such as Objective: Ministries and AiG. AiG, in fact, even touts the "science."
So while creationists applaud what baraminologists are doing, they choose to ignore its conclusions that species can evolve. But why should we be surprised.
A REFINED BARAMIN CONCEPT
That God is the Creator of all things, including all plants and animals, is the unequivocal teaching of Scripture. That these were all established in distinctive groupings called 'kinds' (Hebrew min ) and that there are permanent clear-cut gaps between these kinds (though much potential variation within kinds) is the equally clear teaching of Scripture
(Morris 1984, p.372).
Based on citations in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961,pp.66-67), we may attribute Morris's interest in the kind to the work of Frank Lewis Marsh, who wrote numerous books on the subject of God s created kinds, or in his terminology baramin.
(Marsh 1941;Marsh 1947;Marsh 1950;Marsh 1976).
Despite the centrality and importance of the baramin (kind) to Frank Marshs understanding of creation, Marsh never gave a formal definition of the term. Even more oddly, despite coining the term baramin, Marsh never even used it consistently. He used baramin, kind, Genesis kind, created kind, basic kind, basic unit, and basic type interchangeably.
Throughout his writings,Marsh described his idea of the Bramin, discussed mechanisms of variation within a baramin, and refined his hybridization criterion for recognizing baramins, but he left the formal baramin definition unstated.
The criticism of the baramin focuses primarily on the lack of an operational application of the nebulous baramin that would allow, for example, a complete enumeration of created kinds
(Cracraft 1984).
Here's the interesting part (the two paragraphs are presented in reverse order).That God is the Creator of all things, including all plants and animals, is the unequivocal teaching of Scripture. That these were all established in distinctive groupings called 'kinds' (Hebrew min ) and that there are permanent clear-cut gaps between these kinds (though much potential variation within kinds) is the equally clear teaching of Scripture
(Morris 1984, p.372).
Based on citations in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961,pp.66-67), we may attribute Morris's interest in the kind to the work of Frank Lewis Marsh, who wrote numerous books on the subject of God s created kinds, or in his terminology baramin.
(Marsh 1941;Marsh 1947;Marsh 1950;Marsh 1976).
Despite the centrality and importance of the baramin (kind) to Frank Marshs understanding of creation, Marsh never gave a formal definition of the term. Even more oddly, despite coining the term baramin, Marsh never even used it consistently. He used baramin, kind, Genesis kind, created kind, basic kind, basic unit, and basic type interchangeably.
Throughout his writings,Marsh described his idea of the Bramin, discussed mechanisms of variation within a baramin, and refined his hybridization criterion for recognizing baramins, but he left the formal baramin definition unstated.
The criticism of the baramin focuses primarily on the lack of an operational application of the nebulous baramin that would allow, for example, a complete enumeration of created kinds
(Cracraft 1984).
First, fixity of species would be a poor design principle if God intended for the revelation to persist. God knew that sin would enter His creation, and He knew that the consequences of sin would bring drastic changes to the Creation. Thus, any organisms that were perfectly adapted to their environments and fixed in that adaptation could only die in the face of environmental changes brought on by sin. In order for God s revelation in creation to persist, organisms must be adaptable to the inevitable environmental changes. Fixity of species would lead to catastrophic extinction and thus the elimination of the revelation in creation (apart from God intervening by re-creation, for which we find no biblical support).
Rather than fixity of species, we advocate the persistence of baramins [kinds]. Rather than asserting that species must necessarily occupy a very narrow region of biological character space (i.e.are fixed), we argue that God would need to create organisms with great morphological flexibility and adaptability in order for baramins to survive (persist)to the present. The only need of fixity would be for the revelation of God to persist. We believe that a reasonable theological argument could be made for persistence rather than fixity of species,beginning with two Biblical premises.
Source: "A REFINED BARAMIN CONCEPT" from Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group.( PDF file and "Quick View" via Google.)
"Baraminology is a creationist method of biosystematics where the goal is to define real groups of organisms based on the created kinds of Genesis 1.10 Creationist researchers have begun to analyze the Ambystomatidae family. Using statistical analysis and documenting the ability of hybridization in bisexuals, preliminary results have classified them as a monobaramin. A monobaramin is defined as the group of known organisms that share biologically meaningful similarity with one other.12"
(Footnote 12 references the article here.)
So while creationists applaud what baraminologists are doing, they choose to ignore its conclusions that species can evolve. But why should we be surprised.
