Created kind

Last updated

In creationism, a religious view based on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other biblical texts, created kinds are purported to be the original forms of life as they were created by God. They are also referred to in creationist literature as kinds, original kinds, Genesis kinds, and baramins (baramin is a neologism coined by combining the Hebrew words bará (בָּרָא, 'created') and min (מִין, 'kind')). [note 1]

Contents

The idea is promulgated by Young Earth creationists and biblical literalists to support their belief in the literal truth of the Genesis creation narrative and the Genesis flood narrative during which, they contend, the ancestors of all land-based life on Earth were housed in Noah's Ark. Old Earth creationists also employ the concept, rejecting the fact of universal common descent while not necessarily accepting a literal interpretation of a global flood or a six-day creation in the last ten thousand years. Both groups accept that some lower-level microevolutionary change occurs within the biblically created kinds.

Creationists believe that not all creatures on Earth are genealogically related, and that living organisms were created by God in a finite number of discrete forms with genetic boundaries to prevent interbreeding. This viewpoint claims that the created kinds or baramins are genealogically discrete and are incapable of interbreeding and have no evolutionary (i.e., higher-level macroevolutionary) relationship to one another. [2] [3]

Definitions

The concept of the "kind" originates from a literal reading of Genesis 1:12–24:

And God said, let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind [...] And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind [...] And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so.

Genesis 1:12–24, King James Version [4]

There is some uncertainty about what exactly the Bible means when it talks of "kinds". Creationist Brian Nelson claimed "While the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have arisen." However, Russell Mixter, another creationist writer, said that "One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group [...] there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis." [5]

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 stated that the ability to hybridize and create viable offspring was a sufficient condition for being members of the same baramin. However, he said that it was not a necessary condition, acknowledging that observed speciation events among Drosophila fruitflies had been shown to cut off hybridization. [2]

Marsh also originated "discontinuity systematics", the idea that there are boundaries between different animals that cannot be crossed with the consequence that there would be discontinuities in the history of life and limits to common ancestry. [6]

Baraminology

In 1990, Kurt Wise introduced baraminology as an adaptation of Marsh's and Walter ReMine's ideas that was more in keeping with young Earth creationism. Wise advocated using the Bible as a source of systematic data. [2] Baraminology and its associated concepts have been criticized by scientists and creationists for lacking formal structure. Consequently, in 2003 Wise and other creationists proposed a refined baramin concept in the hope of developing a broader creationist model of biology. [2] Alan Gishlick, reviewing the work of baraminologists in 2006, found it to be surprisingly rigorous and internally consistent, but concluded that the methods did not work. [6]

Walter ReMine 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. [7] These groups correspond to the concepts of holophyly, monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly used in cladistics. [6]

Methods

Baraminology employs many of the same methods used in evolutionary systematics, including cladistics and Analysis of Pattern (ANOPA). However, instead of identifying continuity between groups of organisms based on shared similarities, baraminology uses these methods to search for morphological and genetic gaps between groups. Baraminologists have also developed their own creationist systematics software, known as BDIST, to measure distance between groups. [6]

Criticism

The methods of baraminology are not universally accepted among young-Earth creationists. Other creationists have criticized these methods as having the same problems as traditional cladistics, [8] as well as for occasionally producing results that they feel contradict the Bible. [9]

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous tests and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings. [10] By denying general common descent, it tends to produce inconsistent results that also conflict with evidence discovered by biology. [3] Created kinds have been compared to other attempts at "alternate research" to produce artificial pseudoscientific "evidence" that support preconceived conclusions, similarly to how advocacy was done by the tobacco industry. [11] The US National Academy of Sciences and numerous other scientific and scholarly organizations recognize creation science as pseudoscience. [12] [13] [14]

Some techniques employed in Baraminology have been used to demonstrate evolution, thereby calling baraminological conclusions into question. [15] [16] [17]

See also

Notes

Explanatory notes

  1. The Hebrew words were combined in a grammatically incorrect way by Frank Lewis Marsh: the verb form bará actually means 'he [e.g. God] created', and the correct Hebrew for '[a] created kind' would be min baru. [1]

Citations

  1. Donald Prothero (22 August 2017). Evolutio: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press. ISBN   9780231543163 via Google Books.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Wood; Wise; Sanders; Doran (2003). "A Refined Baramin Concept" (pdf). Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group. pp. 1–14.[ non-primary source needed ]
  3. 1 2 Young, Matt; Edis, Taner, eds. (2004). "Common Descent—It's all or nothing". Why Intelligent Design Fails—A Scientific Critique of New Creationism. Rutgers University Press. pp. 32–47, 34. ISBN   9780813534336.
  4. Genesis 1:12–24
  5. Payne, J. Barton (1958). "The Concept of "Kinds" In Scripture". Journal of the American Science Affiliation. American Scientific Affiliation. 10 (December 1958): 17–20. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Gishlick, Alan (2006). "Baraminology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education. 26 (4): 17–21.
  7. Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology – Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal. 37 (2): 82–91. Archived from the original on 2003-06-18.
  8. Menton; Habermahl; DeWitt (2010). "Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin: Discussion" (PDF). Answers Research Journal. 3: 153–158.
  9. Wilson, Gordon (2010). "Classic Multidimensional Scaling Isn't the Sine Qua Non of Baraminology". Answers in Genesis.[ non-primary source needed ]
  10. "A Review of Friar, W. (2000): Baraminology – Classification of Created Organism". Archived from the original on 2007-04-22.
  11. Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten, eds. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience—Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 348. ISBN   9780226051826.
  12. The National Academies (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/6024. ISBN   978-0-309-06406-4. PMID   25101403. Archived from the original on 7 December 2008. Retrieved December 7, 2008. creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.
  13. "Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations". National Center for Science Education. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
  14. Williams, J. D. (2007). "Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 1 (1): 87–88. doi: 10.1007/s12052-007-0006-7 .
  15. Phil Senter (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. European Society for Evolutionary Biology. 23 (8): 1732–1743. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02039.x . PMID   20561133. S2CID   43041484.
  16. Phil Senter (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. European Society for Evolutionary Biology. 24 (10): 2197–2216. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02349.x . PMID   21726330.
  17. Todd Charles Wood (2010). "Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter's strategy revisited". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. European Society for Evolutionary Biology. 24 (4): 914–918. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x . PMID   21401768.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creationism</span> Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation science</span> Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative. Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts, theories and paradigms of geology, cosmology, biological evolution, archaeology, history, and linguistics using creation science. Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ken Ham</span> Australian Christian fundamentalist

Kenneth Alfred Ham is an Australian Christian fundamentalist, young Earth creationist, apologist and former science teacher, living in the United States. He is the founder, CEO, and former president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Christian apologetics organisation that operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Young Earth creationism</span> Form of creationism

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. In its most widespread version, YEC is based on the religious belief in the inerrancy of certain literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Its primary adherents are Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six literal days. This is in contrast with old Earth creationism (OEC), which holds literal interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and universe. It is also in contrast to theistic evolution, which posits that the scientific principles of evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, solar nebular theory, age of the universe, and age of Earth are compatible with a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Earth creationism</span> Form of creationism

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella of theological views encompassing certain varieties of creationism which may or can include day-age creationism, gap creationism, progressive creationism, and sometimes theistic evolutionism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theistic evolution</span> Views that religion is compatible with science

Theistic evolution is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature. It posits that the concept of God is compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but includes a range of views about how science relates to religious beliefs and the extent to which God intervenes. It rejects the strict creationist doctrines of special creation, but can include beliefs such as creation of the human soul. Modern theistic evolution accepts the general scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, and evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flood geology</span> Pseudoscientific attempt to reconcile geology with the Genesis flood narrative

Flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative, the flood myth in the Hebrew Bible. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the biblical flood, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Answers in Genesis</span> Nonprofit promoting Young Earth creationism

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is an American fundamentalist Christian apologetics parachurch organization. It advocates Young Earth creationism on the basis of its literal, historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the Bible as a whole. Out of belief in biblical inerrancy, it rejects the results of scientific investigations that contradict their view of the Genesis creation narrative and instead supports pseudoscientific creation science. The organization sees evolution as incompatible with the Bible and believes anything other than the young Earth view is a compromise on the principle of biblical inerrancy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gap creationism</span> Form of old Earth creationism

Gap creationism is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods, and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Progressive creationism</span> Belief that God created life gradually

Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of creationism</span>

The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on the premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century. Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth and universe. Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created. The Genesis creation narrative has provided a basic framework for Jewish and Christian epistemological understandings of how the universe came into being – through the divine intervention of the god, Yahweh. Historically, literal interpretations of this narrative were more dominant than allegorical ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation Research Society</span> Christian fundamentalist group

The Creation Research Society (CRS) is a Christian fundamentalist group that requires of its members belief that the Bible is historically and scientifically true in the original autographs, belief that "original created kinds" of all living things were created during the Creation week described in Genesis, and belief in flood geology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Henry M. Morris</span>

Henry Madison Morris was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science". He coauthored The Genesis Flood with John C. Whitcomb in 1961.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jewish views on evolution</span> Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about the theory of evolution

Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about the theory of evolution, experimental evolution, the origin of life, age of the universe, evolutionary creationism, and theistic evolution. Today, many Jewish people accept the theory of evolution and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, reflecting the emphasis of prominent rabbis such as the Vilna Gaon and Maimonides on the ethical rather than factual significance of scripture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frank Lewis Marsh</span>

Frank Lewis Marsh was an American Seventh-Day Adventist biologist, educator and young Earth creationist. In 1963 he was one of the ten founding members of the Creation Research Society.

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young Earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard University. He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Conference on Creationism</span>

The International Conference on Creationism (ICC) is a conference in support of young earth creationism, sponsored by the Creation Science Fellowship (CSF). The first conference occurred in 1986 at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. Subsequent conferences have been held in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018.

Although biological evolution has been vocally opposed by some religious groups, many other groups accept the scientific position, sometimes with additions to allow for theological considerations. The positions of such groups are described by terms including "theistic evolution", "theistic evolutionism" or "evolutionary creation". Of all the religious groups included on the chart, Buddhists are the most accepting of evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and all life within, and that biological evolution is a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization of scientists:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution and geological evolution plus chemical evolution and biological evolution — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Transformed cladistics, also known as pattern cladistics is an epistemological approach to the cladistic method of phylogenetic inference and classification that makes no a priori assumptions about common ancestry. It was advocated by Norman Platnick, Colin Patterson, Ronald Brady and others in the 1980s, but has few modern proponents. The book, Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography by David Williams and Malte Ebach provides a thoughtful history of the origins of this point of view.