Baraminology

Baraminology (pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable; also known by its Intelligent Design technobabble name "discontinuity systematics") is a pseudoscience that attempts to provide a creationist alternative to Linnaean taxonomy and cladistics, based on a biblically literal young Earth creationist worldview. It seeks to redefine the word "kind" (as used in Genesis) to mean a much wider group (a baramin, an ignorantly constructed portmanteau of the Hebrew words for "creation" and "kind", so literally "created kind"), which has since diversified into the species we know today.

Noah's Teapot.

Rescued from the Global Flood

Twelve of the clean kind

Epic of Gilgamesh Flood geology Global flood Global flood chronology Grand Canyon Haji Yearam Hydroplate theory Lake Agassiz Noah Noah's Ark sightings Noah (film) Parasites during the global flood v - t - e

Baraminology was invented ad hoc for the sole purpose of solving a major creationist and literalist problem: how to fit two (or seven) of every kind of animal aboard Noah's Ark without the number of individual animals (and thus the size and scope of both the vessel and of the animal rescue operation being undertaken by the senior citizen in question) instantly reaching whimsical proportions.

The 30-million-plus species estimated to exist today[1] could not have fit, let alone survived, on any plausible boat — and the dimensions of the ark given and accepted by creationists puts a further hard limit on the size and scale of the boat creationists can work with. The modern invention of "baramins" is thus intended to allow for a scriptural reading which reduces the number of animals Noah would have to care for from the absolutely farcical to the "merely" highly implausible.

Many attempts have been made to make this into a science, and attempts to figure out what suitably counts as a "kind" have been published in creationist journals such as the Answers Research Journal. Most of these approaches, however, are subjective at best — and at worst don't even attempt to hide the desperation to shoehorn observations into the literalist Biblical narrative.

History of baraminology

Baramins were first proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh,[2] but lacked sufficient social backing to gain currency. In 1990, when creation "scientists" were becoming more eager — and desperate — to explain how their concepts could possibly be feasible, Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine reintroduced baraminology and tried to work out the criteria for membership in a baramin. "Research" (for a given value of the word) has since continued apace as a key component of young Earth creationism and its pseudojournals.

Etymology

Marsh coined the word "baramin" by taking two words out of a Hebrew glossary and tacking them together with no regard for how the Hebrew language works, much as in the long scientific tradition of mangling Greek with Latin.

Min is typically given the meaning "kind" in elementary glossaries. In Modern Hebrew it means both "species" and "sex". The citation form for the Hebrew verb is the "third person singular masculine perfect active", so (for those who don't speak linguist) bara means "he created" (the semitic root B-R-A in this context is reserved in Hebrew for the act of creating. "He conjured" may be a better translation). It is used in the opening words of the Hebrew Bible: B'reshith bara elohim ... means "In beginning God created…". If one replaces elohim, the subject of that verb, with another noun (min), and tries to make some sort of sense out of it, it would be saying that a "kind", rather than "God" did the creating. (The subject in Ancient Hebrew typically follows the verb.) Those who use the word "baramin" of course would be averse to ascribing the act of creation to something other than God.[3]

Although Ancient Hebrew has the subject following the verb (irrelevant if the subject isn't there), it also has the object following the verb (and the subject, if present) (e.g. "bereshit bara elohim [et ha-shamayim ve-et ha-aretz]", 'in the beginning God created [the sky and the earth]' — the object is the last part of speech). As such, "bara min", 'created a kind', might plausibly be something you might say in Ancient Hebrew (if you have been sniffing the incense too much) or Modern Hebrew as a reply to the question "ma 'asa elohim?", 'what did God do?' — the order of parts of speech is not an issue. It should also be noted that Hebrew is very flexible when it comes to syntax as long as a direct object is indicated with the word "et". Therefore bara elohim et-haShamayim and et-haShamayim elohim bara both mean the same thing, but with different emphases (the second phrase might imply that God only created the heavens, but not the earth . Thus, "bara min" and "min bara" both mean "the species created (something)". If one said this intending the opposite, then they would have been considered an uneducated, illiterate fool; so perhaps this neologism is apt after all.

Marsh seems to have been attempting to coin something like "created kind" under the assumption that both verb morphology and syntax worked the same in Biblical Hebrew as they do in modern English. If that's what he was after, he would have done better to write something like min baru — baru is the perfect passive participle, and typically it would follow the noun it modifies.

Baraminological concepts

ReMine's work in the 1990s specified four labels for groupings of species, which mimic equivalent concepts in cladistics:[4]

"Baraminogram" by Objective: Ministries' parody page on Baraminology, placing "negroids" in a polybaramin with "wolves". This has since been used by actual creationists.

Baraminological term	Cladistical term
Holobaramin (typically abbreviated as baramin): an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry, not excluding any members of the group.	monophyly, clade
Monobaramin: some, but not all, members of the same baramin	paraphyly
Apobaramin: one or more holobaramins; must contain the entirety of each holobaramin.	polyphyly or paraphyly, depending on relation of members
Polybaramin: any mixed grouping of things that includes members of more than one holobaramin.	polyphyly

Later added terms include:

Baraminological term	Cladistical term
Archaebaramin: the original created members of a baramin. For instance, Adam and Eve were the archaebaramin of the "human kind". A type of monobaramin.	most recent common ancestor
Neobaramin: the set of all currently alive members of a baramin, not excluding any or including any dead members. A type of monobaramin.	living population
Palaeobaramin: a monobaramin containing all members alive at a particular time.	previous living population

The goal of baraminology is to break polybaramin groups into their component monobaramins and ascertain to which holobaramin each one belongs.

A diagram illustrating the multiple origin of species from kinds, starting at creation. Contrast with the usual Hillis Plot, or tree of life, which depicts common descent.

Rather than common descent, in which all life on earth is descended from a single ancestor, baraminology posits multiple special creation events. This can be seen in the "creationist orchard",[5] a diagram showing multiple trees of life, each with its own separate starting point. Thus, baraminology seeks to show discontinuity rather than continuity.

(Baraminologists do not use the "creationist orchard" much these days, it being entirely too reminiscent of the evolutionary tree of life that has had the trunk removed at an arbitrary point — because that's exactly what it is. They now tend to use matrices of characteristics.[2])

Despite this scheme recognizing only one "true" level of taxonomy (the baramin), creationists acknowledge the existence of other groupings and even treat these as real categories: Classes like fish, mammals, and birds. (For example, they assert that Archaeopteryx was "fully bird" rather than calling it "fully Archaeopteryx" as per a purely-baraminological concept.) They just present no explanation for vast cross-class similarities, other than "common design"; And species now are mysterious.

We are eager to learn the rigorous methodology used by baraminologists to meaningfully demarcate the line between separate baramins. For instance, eukaryotes have in common the eukaryotic cell, in contrast to prokaryotes, which don't. How do we define a baramin? Are eukaryotes a baramin? And if so, what of the various "baramins" within baramins that possess a eukaryotic cell in common? Are baramins nested in a hierarchy of fundamental tiers of genetic relationships? If so, what is the difference between baramins and clades? Why not just call them clades instead of resorting to pseudoscientific technobabble? Of course, we all know the real answer, don't we?

How to do baraminology

Baraminological research uses some of the techniques of cladistics (much as the terminology mimics that of cladistics) to put species into trees of descent based on common anatomical and DNA features.[6] It is hampered by explicitly rejecting evolution as the science behind what is going on, but some baraminology research approaches excellent evidence for evolution, if only baraminologists could admit this to themselves. (Some all but do.[7]) Evolutionary scientists have even used baraminologists' techniques to show that Archaeopteryx is related to dinosaurs, refuting the idea that they are of separate kinds.[8][9]

Baraminologists use negative evidence to look for discontinuities between trees of life: DNA and morphology differences, unique features in each baraminic group and lack of fossil intermediates.[10] Unfortunately, negative evidence cannot confirm discontinuities, merely show that the common ancestor is not immediate. Of course, that the Bible says that there are different kinds trumps all biological evidence.[10]

Which baramin is it in?

Creationists have been repeatedly grilled for a clear explanation of how to tell if two creatures are part of the same "kind", but have been unable to formulate a consistent answer. It is evident that the only thing that defines a group as a baramin is whether or not a given creationist claims a group to be one.[11]

Baraminologists often put forward that a baramin is a group composed of creatures that can interbreed, pointing to examples of tiger-lion and horse-zebra offspring to show that separate "species" can interbreed. However, the vast majority of organisms are incapable of hybridization,[12] leaving this definition insufficient to trim down the number of animals Noah would have had to bring. Current baraminological "research" indicates[13] that the possibility of hybrids definitely means the same baramin, but the lack thereof does not mean different baramins.

The clearest summary of the art of baraminological classification is given by Roger W. Sanders in his 2010 paper on placing plants into baramins:[14]

The cognita are not based on explicit or implicit comparisons of characters or biometric distance measures but on the gestalt of the plants and the classification response it elicits in humans.

Or: "Forget all this 'measurement' stuff and just follow your my feelings."

Ultimately, the only consistent definition of a baramin is a set of creatures whose common ancestry is so mind-blowingly obvious that even creationists have trouble denying it. Unless it's human, of course, in which case it shares its baramin with no non-human primate.[15] Where various hominids go is another story.[16]

Baramins and DNA

Baraminologists generally accept the existence and function of DNA and even measure changes in it as part of baraminological analysis. However, the idea of baramins seems rather counterintuitive to the observed similarities in the DNA of every organism on Earth. The DNA of humans and chimpanzees is more than 98% identical[17] — sufficiently similar that we can point to the places in the code where the differences emerged, such as the fusion of chromosome 2.[18]

Fortunately, baraminology knows how to deal with this sort of "science": it blankly denies it.[19] For example, after baraminologist Todd Charles Wood notes the similarity of primate genomes, he states:[20]

How does this happen? Is it random? No, we can totally rule out random similarity. Statistically speaking, it's essentially zero probability that this could be random. Could it be somehow functionally necessary that these repeats be the same? That's unlikely, because some of these repeats are naturally variable and you would never even notice. So you could change them, and nothing would happen. Could it be inheritance from a common ancestor? That's at least a logical possibility. A creationist has to rule that out, though, because the Bible says that God created humans separately from apes.

And that is why this similarity has to be the result of design. We know that God created apes and humans separately. The similarities they share must by necessity be a result of that creation event.

Is there a Biblical concept of "kind"?

In the appeal to the Bible in support of the idea, one critical point is whether there is any Biblical support for entities called "kinds".

The word min occurs in the Bible only in a very special construction: the preposition l'+min+possessive pronoun. This is evident even in translation: the repeated phrases according to its/their/his kind. A fixed phrase is consistent with it being an idiom with a non-transparent (i.e., not literal) meaning.[21]At least a bit of justification is needed that the Biblical expression "according to their kind" is meant to refer to a "kind", and that this supposed referent is something which is (1) the thing that is created (rather than it being individuals which are created, for example, or processes, or who-knows-what-else) and (2) unchanging for all time. There is little to support such a supposition.

But the word is suspect for another reason. The word in Biblical Hebrew has something of a mysterious origin. There is no known good relative for the word in closely related languages, supposing that it is a noun at all. It has been suggested that the word is really not a noun in its own right, but only part of a derivation from a grammatical oddity.[22] This is not universally accepted, but it does at least add a bit of suspicion which ought to be addressed.[23][24]

The very concept of fixed species did not occur in the history of thought until the 16th-17th century.[25] In fact, it was invented to help explain Noah's Ark.[26][27] It is an anachronism to attribute to the compilers of the Bible (circa 800 BCE) a concept of some two thousand years later. And once the concept did develop, it was a concept of fixed species, not any larger biological taxon, such as family, perhaps for the obvious reasons that it is not obvious how and why any larger biological taxon would have any objective reality, or how and why it would remain fixed, and that no one has found any evidence or reason for this to be the case. (Not to mention what it means and looks like for a large taxon to be created, and where the smaller taxa come from.)

The concept of fixed kinds seem to have arisen not from any Biblical hermeneutics, but out of the necessities imposed by trying to save the doctrine of creationism from the undeniable reality of the immense diversity of nature.

Do humans form a "Biblical kind"?

The Hebrew word min is never used in reference to humans in the Bible. Of the other words which could be translated as kind, the only instance in which such a word is applied to humans in general is in the Deuterocanon, 2 Maccabees 7:28 — the original Greek anthropon genos, meaning mankind. In other passages where the Greek genos is used in the Septuagint version in reference to humans, it is applied to a subgroup of humans, meaning "relatives" or "clan", as in Exodus 1:9, "people of the children of Israel".

Baraminologists have consistently rejected the notion that humans are in the same baramin as any non-human primate.[15] Recent "research" places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the human holobaramin,[6] although this is quite controversial in the creationist community.[28][29] Never mind that those findings (based on skull similarities) are far better explained by us having evolved directly from them.

As far as the Bible saying that God created humans separately from apes... Well, to begin with, there is nothing in the Bible explicitly about God creating apes. That is "interpretation". By the way, the Bible has nothing about chimps, gorillas, and the other apes for the same reason it's got nothing about chinchillas, kangaroos, or the deep-sea anglerfish: nobody in the Biblical lands or Europe knew about them. The English word "ape" in the King James Bible was the Early Modern English word for "monkey". There is no more any Biblical authority on apes than there is for Neanderthals, Australopithecines, or Smilodon.

Of course, notwithstanding all this, even if the Bible completely, explicitly and unambiguously supported the idea it would still be wrong.

Explaining it away with...evolution!

“”The Creator would appear as endowed with a passion for stars, on the one hand, and for beetles on the other.[30]

Creationists hold that baraminology explains the diversity of life observed today despite the extinction level event of the alleged global flood. This requires new species to diverge — by whatever means — from the original "kinds" taken on board Noah's ark. Todd Charles Wood estimates, from the fossil record and Biblical text, that 15 million species arose in only three to four centuries after the flood, and many of those are now extinct.[31]

This poses a sizable problem, because proponents of baraminology are the same people who reject most of evolution, asserting that new species do not, and cannot, form over time. According to them, only "microevolution" occurs, since horses are still horses and haven't evolved into anything startlingly different in the last few hundred years. Proponents of baraminology hold that instead of loading some of every species on Noah's Ark during the global flood, only examples of each baramin would have to be brought. This removes, for them, the problem of the idea of biblical inerrancy - how millions of creatures could have been housed and fed on a single boat.

Extreme rates of differentiation

The problem is that evolution just does not happen that fast, and this claim has the side-effect of making baraminology proponents supporters of what could be called "Super Evolution" - evolution that works at blinding speed. If genetic differentiation was accelerated up to the level where a few thousand creatures[32] change into the many tens of thousands of vertebrate species alone, then it would be quick enough to easily submit the "proof" of evolution that creationists often ask for - such as demonstrating it in the lab, or monkeys giving birth to humans. One could, of course, resort to special pleading that God "switched on" the "Super Evolution" briefly - and then switched it off again - as soon as humans were bright enough to spot it. However, the creationists have presented no evidence as to why God is unwilling and/or unable to repeat such a process now or in the future, or indeed any evidence that such a thing has happened in the past, particularly as fossil evidence only indicates a smooth and relatively slow evolutionary process. Even the best evidence for rapid evolutionary change (known as punctuated equilibrium) - such as the Lenski experiment or the Cambrian explosion - do not show evolution happening anywhere near fast enough for "Super Evolution" to be realistic. The greatly increased mutation rate that baraminology requires to achieve this differentiation would have caused severe problems in the organismal populations. The mutation rate required for such rapid genetic change would not leave enough viable genomes for negative mutations to be selected out of the gene pool.

There are an estimated four harmful mutations per human zygote (embryo).[33] Normally, this is not a problem because nearly all mutations are recessive, and natural selection can weed out these malignant changes. Baraminology would require the rate of mutation to be sped up by a factor of up to 250,000,[34] and we could expect to see a gigantic influx of mutations approaching one million detrimental genetic changes per fertilization. This would result, of course, in the sudden termination of all life on earth.

In addition, genetic mutations cause most types of cancer;[35] an increase of even a few hundred times, far less than baraminology demands, would have tremendous and fatal consequences for animal life.

Baraminology finds a first answer

Fortunately, baraminology has found a possible mechanism for rapid diverse genetic change that doesn't conflict with the Bible or kill everything. Jean Lightner claims chromosomal translocations are the primary source of variation in the cattle baramin, and posits God as the agent who personally set up the cattle genome in such a manner so as to ensure that each of the translocations would play out just right.[13] Thus, creation science uses God as evidence of God. And they think we use circular reasoning.

See also

For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Baraminology.

• Cladistics
• Linnaean taxonomy
• Species
• Various articles in Answers Research Journal: "Determining the Ark Kinds" and "Mammalian Ark Kinds"

External links

• The Baraminology Study Group (or "BSG")
• Wood, Todd Charles, Wise, Kurt P., Sanders, Roger, and Doran, N., "A Refined Baramin Concept." Baraminology Study Group, July 25, 2003.
• Wood, Todd Charles. "The Current Status of Baraminology." CRSQ, 2006.
• (Or, for that matter, anything by Todd Charles Wood: his blog)
• National Center for Science Education: Baraminology — the NCSE warns you about these lunatics
• CreationWiki's guide to mammalian baramins

References

1. "How Many Animal Species Are There". ThoughtCo.. November 18, 2017.
2. Gishlick, Alan (July-August 2006). "Baraminology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26 (4): 17–21.
3. "Ironically, the word baramin created by the use of English syntax, in Hebrew means created by nature, therefore implies evolution." From the article Baramin in the Polish-language version of Wikipedia Baramin#Etymologia i odniesienia biblijne
4. Frair, Wayne (2000). "Baraminology - Classification of Created Organisms". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 37 (2): 82–91.
5. Jerlström, Pierre. "Is the evolutionary tree turning into a creationist orchard?". Creation Ministries International.
6. Wood, Todd C. (5 May 2010). "Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin". Answers Research Journal 3: 71-90.
7. Wood, Todd C.. "The truth about evolution". "in which Wood calls evolution "an extremely successful scientific theory" but says that "It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.""
8. "Dinosaur man: playing creationists at their own game.". New Scientist. 4 Augustus 2010.
9. Walker, Matt (5 July 2011). "Can religious teachings prove evolution to be true?". BBC.
10. BSG: A Creation Biology Study Group. "About Us: Taxonomic Concepts and Methods". Creation Biology Society.
11. Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists confront creationism. ISBN 0393301540.
12. See the Wikipedia article on Hybrid.
13. Lightner, Jean K. (11 June 2008). "Karyotype Variability within the Cattle Monobaramin". Answers Research Journal 1: 77-88.
14. Sanders, Roger W. (25 February 2010). "A Quick Method for Developing a Cognitum System Exemplified Using Flowering Plants". Occasional Papers of the BSG 16: 1-63.
15. Robinson, D. Ashley; Cavanaugh, David P. (March 1998). "A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 34 (4).
16. Comparison of all skulls (talkorigins.org)
17. Ken Miller on Human Evolution
18. MacAndrew, Alec. "Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes". Evolution Pages.
19. Lightner, Jean K. (14 December 2007). "A tale of two chromosomes". Answers in Genesis.
20. Wood, Todd C. (16 June 2010). "Stickman explains homology". Todd's Blog.
21. With the caution that analogies between languages are to be used with reserve, think of the idiomatic English expression kind of, as in he was kind of happy — there is clearly no intended referent for the word kind.
22. To risk another cross-language analogy, think of the English verb burgle, which is a back-formation from the noun burglar. Or the noun ilk (meaning kind), whose ultimate origin is a pronoun meaning "same".
23. Cines, David J. A., ed (2001). "min". The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: [ Sheffield Academic Press. p. 262. ISBN 1-84127-217-5.
24. Rabin, Chaim (1961). "Etymological Miscellanea". In Rabin, Chaim. Studies in the Bible. Scripta Hierosolymitana. VIII. Jerusalem: Magnes Press of the Hebrew University. p. 392.
25. Wilkins, John S. (2009). Species: A History of the Idea. Species and Systematics. 1. University of California Press. p. 232. ISBN 978-0-520-26085-6. "The biological notion of species did not develop until the end of the sixteenth and through the seventeenth centuries CE."
26. Wilkins, John S. (2009). Species: A History of the Idea. University of California Press. pp. 232, 95. ISBN 978-0-520-26085-6.
27. Wilkins, John S. (28 October 2013). "We have 'species' thanks to Noah's Ark". The Conversation.
28. Menton, David N. (25 August 2010). "Baraminological Analysis Places Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and Australopithecus sediba in the Human Holobaramin: Discussion". Answers Research Journal 3: 153-158.
29. Line, Peter (17 June 2010). "Gautengensis vs sediba: A battle for supremacy amongst 'apeman' contenders, but neither descended from Adam".. Wood's response with links can be found at his blog.
30. Wikiquote — JBS Haldane Though The Creator may have an even greater fondness for nematodes.
31. Sheppard, Pam (22 January 2009). "Building a Community for Discovery". Answers In Genesis.
32. Baraminologists do not yet claim a solid figure for the number of baramins. John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (Institute for Creation Research, 1996), as summarised by Jonathan Sarfati, says 8,000 genera would be sufficient.
33. Giannelli, Francesco; Green, Peter M. (21 June 2000). "The X Chromosome and the Rate of Deleterious Mutations in Humans". The American journal of human genetics 67 (2): 515-517.
34. The Creation Museum teaches super evolution. (Note that "super evolution" is a description by skeptics of the required process, not a term used by creationists.)
35. Wikipedia article on cancer