Summations Only

Actually baraminology seeks to justify the biblical concept of kinds, and to make it sound scientific at the same time.It is not a field of research because no conclusions can be arrived at other than those specified in scripture. It is pure religious apologetics.An example: From "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 which appears on the christiananswers.net website.

quote:

---

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. ...

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If creationists are trying to define "kind" they first need to determine whether they are trying to arrive at a scientific definition or one that must agree with scripture above all.If it is the latter case, then they are doing religious apologetics, not science.They can only claim to be doing science if they follow the scientific method and accept the results, whether or not those results agree with scripture.The method determines which of these two fields of endeavor is being practiced.When one is required to conform to scripture one is doing religious apologetics--the exact opposite of science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

In replying to HBD, above, Bluejay writes:

quote:

---

This makes me a bit curious: what makes the dismissal of baraminology by mainstream science seem off-handed to you?

---

Well, there are a couple of reasons science might dismiss baraminology. You mentioned one in your post. But here's another, from my post #42, above:Frair, a baraminologist, provides us with a series of taxonomic guidelines for polybaramins, apobaramins, monobaramins and holobaramins. And what is the most important guideline?

quote:

---

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).

---

This "guideline" shows clearly that this whole baraminology business is religion! It is designed to sound like science, presumably in hopes of fooling the unwary, and it is designed to provide a scientific-sounding bunch of names and a scientific guise for the biblical "kinds" -- but it is not designed to advance scientific knowledge. In fact, baraminology, creation "science," and creationism are all inherently anti-science.So perhaps that has something to do with the "off-handed dismissal" of this entire endeavor by science.Edited by Coyote, : Grammar

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The analogy I prefer is throwing 10 dice and keeping those with sixes, while rolling only those that are not sixes. You will have sixes on all ten dice in minutes.Your comment about a "previous neutral mutation" suggests that this is indeed closer to the way evolution works than having to roll all ten each time.Most creationist calculations claiming that evolution is impossible because of the long odds use the "roll them all each time" method, and are clearly erroneous.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, this is not correct. The causes of, for example, the megafaunal extinctions in North America are still hotly debated.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why bother?You have shown you have no interest in learning anything.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So these critters all evolved from a common ancestor in less than 4,350 years?Or actually in less than 2,000, as we have decent records starting by then.Creationists generally deny evolution occurs at all, now you are proposing evolution thousands of times faster than any scientist has ever done.Do you see the inconsistency in this?

And you have some real-world evidence for these claims I presume?What you are claiming is that species were static for thousands of years but suddenly underwent massive evolution for a short period, then became static again.Surely you must have evidence for this hyperspeciation? Something in the fossil record maybe? In the genomes? And surely you can point to dating evidence to support this claim?If not, remember that scientists can point to real-world evidence for their view of speciation and the change of species through time.