Talk:Baraminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baraminology was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 22, 2007

Article milestones Date Process Result December 11, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 17, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baraminology article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Somebody asked for this at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematical and Natural Sciences but there were no links to it so I threw one in at Creationism. It doesn't seem useful to me, but then I do not understand why labels such as Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus are universally useful either. I have tried to stay NPOV --Henrygb 00:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why qualify? 2 ==Controversy== 3 Dishonesty, withholding facts, and NPOV 4 Err, do these people claim this is a science? 5 Copyvio 6 MErge 7 Reference to run down and include possibly 8 database 9 Racism? 10 Citing Objective Ministries 11 Merge 12 GA? 13 psuedoscience 14 Failing GA 15 Baraminology Peer-Review Documentation 16 Evolutionary theory as a holobaramin 17 Merge notice 18 ReMine (1990)? 19 recent edits 20 Merging 21 Problems with the lead section 22 Common universal descent proven?

[edit] Why qualify?

I notice that throughout the article, there is the comment (in creationist view). I see no such comment in the page on evolution, even though there are many problems with the conjecture of evolution. Boffey 09:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and I will explain: the reason I wrote it here is that I made a set of assertions which if left unqualified would have caused surprise and raised POV concerns. I did much the same with universal common descent and the theory of evolution, which was an attempt at balance.

As another point, I think the article became more unclear after 21 February. Not it has been merged into created kinds.

I removed the Controversial tag as I see no controversy here. --Xyzzyplugh 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==Controversy==

From the article:

In 2004 Richard von Sternberg, a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, acting in his capacity as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington accepted for publication a paper by Stephen C. Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, causing a storm of controversy [1]. This is the only paper on intelligent design to have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. [2] Sternberg left the publication shortly afterward, and the society published a statement renouncing the paper.

This has nothing to do with baraminology, so I moved it to the talk page. --Tgr 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dishonesty, withholding facts, and NPOV

The article is mostly silent on baraminology's status (or lack thereof) in the science community. This article discusses baraminology as if it were an accepted science, which it most certainly isn't. Not mentioning the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects creationism (and, a fortiori, baraminology) is a very dishonest portrayal of the issue. It's not a violation of NPOV policy to point out the simple fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists do not see any legitimacy in any creationism-related theory. In fact, portraying it as if it's science when it is widely considered a pseudoscience is taking a non-neutral point of view by deliberately omitting relevant facts. Wje 00:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added the scientific status of this theory. The major point is that, like all of Creation Science, Baraminology is psuedoscience as defined by the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, no peer reviewed research has been published supporiting this theory. All research has been published in religous journals that do not undergo peer review.--Roland Deschain 00:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Err, do these people claim this is a science?

No part of the article seems to show any Baraminologist people claiming that it is science, the only thing I read coming close is this ReMine person saying that something could be a theory, but cannot be observed or classified, so that doesn't sound like he's saying that this is necessarily science. Then there's the book mentioned which had the word "Biology" in it, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the article saying the writer takes this biology he's advocating as a necessarily scientific biology. Homestarmy 14:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Deleted a clear copyvio of http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutconcepts.html Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You could have gone back to the original version[3], which was not a copyvio --Henrygb 11:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MErge

Merged, per discussion on Talk:Created kind Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have undertaken the merge [4] three minutes after suggesting it [5]. Given that it has already been discussed at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology with the conclusion of keeping the article, and you were actively involved in that discussion [6], it is difficult to see how your instant merge was justified. --Henrygb 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the top section of Talk:Created kind. I discovered it was already debated, and, adding my vote, had a three-to-one majority of the very few people who cared, so went ahead. (There was also a fair amount of uspport for a merge on the deletion vote, so...) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(Also, the deletion vote, by my tally, shows 8 supports (including mine) for Merge, and 8 that don't say anything about merging either way. As it was a deletion vote, there's no guarantee that the remaining 8 don't support a merge) Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Have the discussion first. What was said in December 2006[7] is a little more up to date than some thoughts in February 2005[8]. --Henrygb 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not understand what the distinction is between a created kind and a baramin, so I do not know why a merge is not appropriate. What is the reason for not merging?--Filll 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there was a recent debate on the subject of which Adam Cuerden was aware (he started it), and it came to a conclusion (according to the closing administrator) which he disagrees with. That should not stop him reopening the debate, but he should not take radical action where he does not have the support of a consensus before further discussion. --Henrygb 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It came to a conclusion NOT TO DELETE. Don't put words in the administrator's mouth, please. As I pointed out above, there was 50% spontaniously saying that merge would be good, which is NOT ONE OF THE STANDARD VOTES FOR AFD. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although some people claim there is a difference between a created kind and a baramin, I still do not understand it.--Filll 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a new AfD up, since the merge has already happened, so, let's see how it goes. I apologise that we obviously have different views on whether there's a consensus to merge, but suspect there will be one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to run down and include possibly

[9]--Filll 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] database

the wrong database was used--PubMed only includes biomedicine, with only incidental coverage of zoology and botany. The database to use is Biological Abstracts (Biosis). , an expensive database usually found only in large university libraries. I' ve done this search, using the search term baramin* in the general search term box, which includes titles and abstracts, 1926+, whicxh is the most comprehensive search possible on that database. I've added the result to the article page. DGG 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Tweaked the phrasing a little. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism?

Is it just me, or does this chart, recently linked, demonstrate racism on the part of the creator? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Both. It looks like an unfortunate choice to illustrate, but it in effect seems to say "Negoids" are not related to "wolves" --Henrygb 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's completely racist, and it should be used to illustrate the inherent racism of some of the Creationist community. Not all, but some. Orangemarlin 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many Creationists are racist, but this seems to be a bad example. It basically says that Caucasoids and Mongoloids are extremely similar, while Negroids and wolves are entirely dissimilar.

Aye. Perhaps we should silently delete it, and instead make a quick illustration of our own? I don't think it'd be hard, and we could avoid the unfortunate parts (and the awkward placement of the link). Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Creationists sometimes claim racism originated with the theory of evolution, and claim that the lobbying of some churches to abolish slavery imply that creationists were soley responsible for the emancipation of slaves. However, a dirty little secret is that many creationists, fundamentalists, biblical literalists etc use the bible to justify racism. And clearly, baraminology is crafted loosely enough to accommodate people with racist views. Nice. --Filll 16:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we should include this information. Why would we protect them from their own views? In fact, I find this somewhat mildly satisfying because it reveals some interesting but uncomfortable truths. I think this almost calls for another section in one of our current articles, or maybe a new article. Nothing disinfects like sunlight, after all. --Filll 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that it's hard to say definate things about it - the article it's from uses different groups in the text, and while it's suspicious, down to the point where I think the editors changed the groups in the text, we have only our speculations: We cannot prove racism, even if it's at the least a horrific blunder.

Now, the line in this other article about how it's "possible" that the human races could interbreed ('"...the various races (Caucasians, Ethiopians, Mongolians, Amerindians [Amerinds or Native Americans], etc.). See Figure 3. A member of any of these races potentially would be inter-fertile with a spouse of the opposite sex from any other race.") [10] That may well be evidence. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

After someone dug up that website claiming that evolution is an evil Jewish plot, I am itching to compile this sort of material into an article about Creationism, evolution and racism exploring all sides of this issue. --Filll 20:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially since one of the more specious claims I've read is that "Evolutionists brought us Hitler." Since Hitler believe in the purity of races, I'm more inclined that he was a form of Creationist, but then again, I just think he was completely evil and it doesn't really matter.Orangemarlin 20:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard evolution produced Hitler. I have heard evolution is the same as communism. I have heard evolution created slavery. I have heard that evolutionists favor fascism. I have heard that evolution is responsible for genocide. I have heard evolution was responsible for lynching. I have heard that evolution was followed by the Romans who fed the Christians to the lions. I have heard that the Pharohs of Egypt followed the evil evolution religion. I have heard that Hinduism is the same as evolution, and this proves why Hindus are evil and inferior etc etc. Some creationists try to claim that it was evolutionists that ran the inquisition and imprisoned Galileo in his house. I have heard that Islam and the Islamic terrorists are evil because they are evolutionists, and Mohammed was a proponent of evolution. I have heard that Shintoists in Japan brought evolution to Japan, and used evolution to prove the Emperor was descended from the Sun God. I have heard that before evolution, there was no such thing as war or slavery. I have heard that all of science was created by creationists, and that evolution is a false science that is preventing real advances in science and medicine. Evolution is supposedly responsible for gun crimes and efforts to regulate guns in the US and teenage pregnancy and drug addiction and marital infidelity and prostitution and on and on and on. How can anyone pay any serious attention to these "characters" (I am biting my tongue here) is absolutely beyond me. But nevertheless, many many do. And the only way to deal with it effectively is to not hide any of their motivations or pronouncements, even of fringe elements. Lets lay it all out on the table, even the kooky extremists, with good solid references and documentation. Lets expose them I say. If they want to believe that stuff, ok fine, but lets not hide it or allow them to ignore some of the more reprehensible aspects of their "movement". (It sure smells like a movement to me).--Filll 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You've heard too much Filll, I guess we'll have to accuse evilutionism of causing polio too, mwahaahahahahah! Homestarmy 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

...but evolution did produce polio. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See, its already working, fast information campaign isn't it? Homestarmy 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Objectiveministries is a parody website. JoshuaZ 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am reasonably well involved in the creationist community, and those I know are not in the least racist. I don't think racism is part of either creationsim or evolution, but either can be twisted to suit someone's preconceived notions about race. By the way, whoever came up with the idea of evolution creating evil or whatever is crazy. But polio... that's funny! ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Objective Ministries

I'm pretty sure this is a parody website. We should probably just cite AIG instead. JoshuaZ 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell - if it's a parody, it's a very subtle one - it's full of "legit" banner ads: Evolutionists want to murder you goes to AIG, the Free Kent ad goes to drdino.com. It seems too weird to be real, but it also seems real. Guettarda 17:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It also wants Landover Baptist Church shut down.[11] On the balance, it's no weirder than Conservapedia. Guettarda 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, well. I've changed it to Friar, who everyone else seems to be copying anyway. If it's a parody website, it really didn't have to try hard to parody baraminology.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen an "Evolutionists want to murder you" banner from a serious creationist website, the point generally being made is that evolutionary thinking has often caused people to not care for the most part about whether they murder people or not, not that it actually encourages the act. Homestarmy 18:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a parody, and a very funny one at that. The "creation science" section of the website is sponsoring an expedition to Africa (the "dark continent" they term it) to bring back live Pterosaurs. They decided on this after eliminating a number of other candidates (velociraptors guarding the Arc of the Covenant were too dangerous, pleisiosaurs too large, trilobytes to deep in the ocean, etc.) Creationists just don't go that far out on a limb even when they do fall into their true-believer syndrome. --216.125.49.252 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. It had been a pretty long-standing source in that article, and if you look at just that page, it's pretty believable as a real source, particularly as most of the bits that look like parody are just slight tweaks of the Wayne Friar cite (unambiguously real) that replaced it. Admittedly, the bit about defining terms ought to have given me pause, but I fear my view of humanity's intelligence in general has been shattered a bit too often for that to cause me any trouble. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I think that a majority of 1 is a little small to be decisive, particularly given the different views expressed in the recent debate at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraminology--Henrygb 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree iwith your interpretation of the AfD, but, eh, well. Look, I'm open to not merging, but can you give some clear indication as to how the content could be divided between them? Because without that, there's a lot of overlap. Also, we hit the problems that whole sections of Created kind are scarcely documentable. (notably, the "hypothesised kinds" section, a list of any group anyone has ever said might be a kind, incomplete, unreferenced, and probably unmaintainable.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this. A large number of biblical literalists or young earth creationists believe that God created different animals and plants as related in the first two chapters of Genesis and with hints elsewhere in the Bible. These differences are "Created kinds" and should be discussed there (some believe that later evolution or breeding then produced new species, others not). A small subgroup aiming to provide something similar to phylogenetics developed a grouping system they called "Baraminology" and that should be discussed here. There can be a brief link each way, but they are distinct topics. --Henrygb 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I always goot the impression that they both started from the same few books and people, just one is the popular movement and the other the attempt to sound sciency, with Baraminology, the sciency movement, being used to provide some sort of support for any Created kinds claims. It'd be hard to draw a line between them. Hmm. Well, perhaps the sensibble thing is to try and trim out the unmaintainable parts of Created kinds, reference it up, with expansions from any suitable references, and see if we end up with much left? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA?

This article is nominated for GA status, yet now there's a merge proposel which seems to of succeeded. If the merge is imminent, I can put the article on hold if everything's already worked out on what to do, (Even though I probably count as a signfigant contributor, though I can't quite remember how much I may of edited this article) because even though a merge certainly doesn't violate the stability criteria, I think it would be a bit weird for a reviewer to possibly review the article one day, then have the article be at a new title or something the next day. Homestarmy 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably won't actually merge for a while yet, if it does (It's somewhat contingent on getting material from Created kind up to sufficient quality - if you look there, you'll see it's an unreferenced ugly mess, so it all depends on whether any material remains after cleanup. Put it on hold for a week or two? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for two weeks i'd have to put it on hold twice, but i'll just put it on hold anyway. Homestarmy 16:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for a long time. I see some problems with it before it should be passed. In the intro:

1. "Creation science" and "Baraminology" needs to be lower case when they don't begin a sentence.
2. What's "Biological Abstracts"? The average reader would require a little bit of explanation.
3. "...and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between the clean and the unclean."

In the section "Holobaramin":

1. "A holobaramin is an entire group..."
2. Too much usage of parentheses - it's possible to write that entire section just with better prose without even any parenthesis.

In the section "Monobaramin":

1. "So, for example, dogs could be seen as..."

In the section "Apobaramin":

1. Wikilink "evolutionary biology".

In the section "Polybaramin":

1. Wikilink "North America" and "United States".

In the section "Early efforts at demarcation":

1. The entire section is completely without inline referencing.

Inline references (Notes section):

1. Need to standardised how these references are displayed. Consider using citation templates, especially Template:Cite web.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] psuedoscience

rather than labeling psuedoscience, why not state its status as creationist science that is not accepted. show some integrity and let the facts speak for themselves —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.207.1 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I still never even got a response to my question last October about whether or not any people involved with Baraminology even claim it is a science or scientific, and without that, there can't be pseudoscience if something isn't pretending to be Science. As far as the article tells me, its just a classification scheme advocated by many creationists to organize the created kinds in the Bible, creating a classification scheme that has similarities to parts of evolutionary biology isn't the same as advocating a different kind of science on the issue.... Homestarmy 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Baraminology study group pretends that baraminology is a science (or at the very least a protoscience) and they aim to get it to replace evolutionary biology. Do a google search and see what I mean.--ScienceApologist 21:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failing GA

I have removed this article from the list of GA nominees (after an extended hold period) for the following reasons:

• Per WP:LEAD, "a significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead." The lead of this article contains a great deal of information that is not mentioned later in the article, including an entire paragraph of criticism which immediately follows the definition of the term. This unusual placement leads me to posit that the article is, as currently written, not neutral. I think a better organization would be to have a straight explanation of the theory and its terminology, and then a criticism section (perhaps preceded or integrated with a comparison section between creationist taxonomies and cladistics). Ultimately, I think the article could benefit from third-party eyes, who don't give a damn one way or another which theory is accurate.
• I don't think the Early Efforts at Demarcation section is well enough sourced; the books mentioned (including ReMine's books, which are referred to often but never referenced) should have full citations and page references if possible.

Smaller issues:

• "Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924." This is an awkward and unclear way of stating what Biological Abstracts is.
• Spelling error in note 4.

Chubbles 03:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to fix some of the above problems noted; mainly by adding a criticism section, and fixing some of the NPOV errors on the page. Some parts still need work though... I've kept the contrasting details about evolution's perspective within the intro and the four classifications, though, as per the section on undue weight in NPOV, but kept them short enough to not distract from the point of those sections, and then backed them up in the Criticism section (that is, with the already-cited info. I did not add new citations or content.) --Bonesiii 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baraminology Peer-Review Documentation

There is actualy a significant amount of scientific peer-reviewed documentation of Baraminology and other Creation Science subjects. For further information, I refer you to the Creation Research Society [12]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Troberts2525 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

The Creation Research Society does not seem to qualify as a scientific organization due to the required "statement of belief" that members must agree with in order to become members. [13] Determining the answer before asking questions would seem to exclude the methods of science. Calladus (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But a creationist scientific society is no different from any other group of scientists who uphold an unproven theory. By the way, many scientists who uphold creationsim are former evolutionists, so their ideas should be considered to have some scientific merit, even if not as much as well-accepted theories, such as evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladius Terrae Novae (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The scientific community (well over 99.9% of the scientists in relevant fields) as well as the academic and judicial community have rejected the scientific claims of creationists. And so, we report that. It is that simple.--Filll (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary theory as a holobaramin

"In evolutionary theory, by contrast, all life forms one holobaramin"

Is this actually accurate? I don't think evolutionary theory necessarily dictates that there has to be one original lifeform. If life can spontaneously begin in one place, it might as well be able to spontaneously begin somewhere else as well. I'm sure there are evolutionary theories of life on earth that would go back to an original organism, but I don't see how it could possibly rationally be applied to the entire universe. The quoted text seems more like something a Baraminologist would say about evolutionary theory when about to make an argument against it; I don't think it's a true statement about evolutionary theory, or at least it is only true in a limited sense (i.e. dismissing life outside of Earth). - Rainwarrior 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the theories put forward by Darwin was universal common descent. It seems to be accepted by mainstream biologists and geneticists. Since there is no evidence either way on the existence or provenance of life elsewhere, it remains a theory. --Rumping 21:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused about the meaning of "theory", as opposed to "hypothesis". And Darwin said all life could be descended from one or several origins -- he didn't state a preferred view or provide evidence for one or the other. The genetic code -- unknown to Darwin -- common to all life of Earth strongly suggests a single origin. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So the sentence implies that only life on Earth is being discussed. Okay. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior makes an excellent point regarding multiple beginnings of life. As there is no workable theory of how life could have started spontaneously it is generally assumed that it only happened once.Glunt 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to with "no workable theory of how life could have started spontaneously" (which isn't true; there are now several plausible abiogenetic theories that are in their early stages), and everything to do with a single genetic code common to all life. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, only in Baraminology. In most scientific study it is never generally assumed that anything happens only once. The scientific method is very much about repeatability. Whether or not there is yet an adequate theory for why something happened, knowing that it did happen necessarily suggests that it has happened before and will happen again. It is only when you hypothesize the intervention of a divine creator that it becomes plausible that it only happened once. - Rainwarrior (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ignorant nonsense. Repeatability in the scientific method is about repeatability of experimental results, not about whether or not things only happen once. If life arose more than once on the Earth, there is no sign of it -- all organisms share the same genetic code. A single origin of life on Earth isn't Baraminology, it's a scientific conclusion from empirical evidence. -- 71.102.149.168 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the origin of life on Earth specifically, nor was I referring to the idea that all life on Earth shares a single origin. I meant only that if the origin of life happened here, on Earth, under the right conditions it would be repeatable (in the controlled conditions of an experiment, or on another world). I was not attempting to suggest that life on Earth has multiple origins. It was a direct response to the preceding statement that "there is no workable theory of how life could have started spontaneously" implies that "it is generally assumed that it only happened once", which I believe is untrue in that context and unscientific, as I said. - Rainwarrior (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge notice

Having three articles on creationist approaches to biology seems like overkill to me. Since this is the major article on the subject, I posted a merge request for both creation biology and created kinds to redirect here. Please comment on the suggestion. ScienceApologist 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do not merge. Just because you don't like a subject doesn't mean you should reduce the number of articles covering that subject. I don't like Nazis, but I don't think every article about Nazis need to be merged into Nazism. Creation biology, especially, is different enough to definitely warrant its own page. Perhaps merge created kinds with creation biology, though; it could actually improve both articles to do so. --profg 00:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  To be clear, my rationale was not "I don't like creationism so let's reduce the number of creationist articles." My rationale is "we don't need three separate articles on the creationist conception of biology". ScienceApologist 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Wouldn't "Created Kinds" have more focus on the Genesis verse which is the basis of microevolutionary views than just "Baraminology"? And wouldn't creation biology be able to mention more things than just baraminology? I mean, Baraminology isn't some universal theme in Creationist reaserch, is it? Homestarmy 01:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  I don't follow your first question. Your second question assumes that there is something more to creationist biology than baraminology, but I cannot see what it is from the resources we have or the articles as currently written. If you know of anything to convince us that there is a wider group of people who claim ideas under the "creation biology" umbrella but, for example, dismiss baraminology, then by all means let us know. ScienceApologist 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  On the first one, I mean that an article on "Created Kinds" would tend to focus more on the Genesis verse which is foundational to YEC creation science, namely, that all creatures produce offspring according to their kind. Baraminology, on the other hand, probably wouldn't mention that verse very much....As for my second question, I wasn't aware than Baraminology is the limit of creation biology reaserch, and if it is, I can understand merging that article. Homestarmy 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, the Genesis verse is the impetus for Baraminology. Why shouldn't baraminology mention this? ScienceApologist 03:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but Baraminologies main goal doesn't seem to be to use the Genesis verse to prove their model, but rather, to use their model to eventually prove the ideas of the Genesis verse. So therefore, it seems like Created Kinds doesn't necessarily lead into the exact model proposed by Baraminology. Also, looking at the Creation Biology article, I see several different types of "creation biologies" listed there, and Baraminology is only one of them... Homestarmy 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  If you have evidence of someone accepting created kinds while denying baraminology present it here. Otherwise, you're engaging in hypothetical scenarios which border on original research. What's more, I don't see any references for the different creation biologies actually existing, and I question whether the creation biology article is appropriately verified. ScienceApologist 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Is denial really necessary? Simply not knowing about baraminology at all would be enough to distinguish someone who accepts created kinds from someone who accepts baraminology. Nextly, I sure hope all the different creation biologies listed in the creation biologies article actually exist, otherwise, somebody has been pulling off some amazing hoaxes to trick us into thinking that the teleological argument, biogenesis, irreducible complexity, and specified complexity opinions exist and are all worthy of their own Wikipedia articles. Homestarmy 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Those aren't really "biologies" per se. ScienceApologist 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that no biological models proposed by creationists were considered "biologies" in a formal sense, something about pseudoscience, pfft.... Homestarmy 19:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Well at least baraminology pretends to describe how biology works. Teleology, biogenesis, irreducible and specified complexity are all arguments and not descriptions. ScienceApologist 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether or not I favor a merge. On the one hand, baraminology clearly comes from the notion of created kinds and very interwoven with it. On the other hand, many proponents of the created-kind notion don't have anything to do with baraminology at all. For example, if one were to talk to any charedi who believes in the notion of created kinds they'd probably never have heard of baraminology. It might make sense as a subsection of the Created Kinds article but I'm not convinced. JoshuaZ 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ReMine (1990)?

This article makes numerous mentions of 'ReMine (1990)' -- in fact much of the article seems to be based on this work, but makes no formal citation of it. The only work by ReMine that I can find mentioned is his 1993 book, The Biotic Message. Can anyone throw any light on what 'ReMine (1990)' was, so it can be properly referenced? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits

I rewrote the article a bit to include the compatibilist interpretation of biblical kinds. This is the predominant view among biblical scholars.

In response to WikiWHOnow's edits: 1) Rejection of creationism is on par within the scientific community as the rejection of a stork or cabbage patch hypothesis for reproduction - "most of the..." understates the case. 2) Science does not believe this or that, it yields facts. 3) When you say that "science considers" instead of "it is a fact that", you imply that there is some other recognized authority on facts, and there is not. 4) Replacing "is well-established and tested, and accepted" with "is assumed", inside a cited sentence, is vandalism. 5) I'm not sure what wp's policy on bible/Bible is, given that we're talking about the bibles of all three abrahamic faiths is, but if you find out, do as you wish. 6) Your summaries qualify as personal attacks. Chill out. –M^T 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

In "biblical kinds", the quotes from creationists should probably be removed. Their arguments are not peer reviewed, the people aren't credible, and frankly, the points made are ridiculous. Frank claims that the bible denies the creation of new species, which is a) false when anyone looks literally at what the bible says about kinds, and b) false according to biblical scholars/authorities, and c) we cover this point when we say "creationists disagree with common ancestry". Mixter then gives a banal response: "well actually we don't know what the bible means by kinds". (Actually, one thing we do know is that even different breeds of cow constitute different kinds.) All we need to say here is that "there's disagreement among creationists regarding criteria".

In "concepts", the distinctions between mono/etc-baramins is essentially trivia. Including it gives the reader the impression that baraminology has robust concepts just like phylogenetics. But on closer inspection we find out that they're just playing with a few first-course-in-logic concepts like "unions of two kinds". So baraminology does not have robust concepts. All that we need to say is that baraminologists make groups based on kinds.

In "criteria", same story. We need to say only that interbreeding-with-viable-offspring and proven lineage are criteria, and that scripture trumps them. We could probably say a bit more about baramin distance (which is, informally speaking, a bastardized version of what biologists did back when they didn't have genomes and only similar looking animals) - like how they "compare the characters [sic, cf. characteristics] of animals - height, color, hair type, and so on - to determine which are within the same type". The "criticism" section can be cut in half, and is redundant.

If you accept these points, and I think that you should, then the article becomes a very brief discussion of biblical kinds, an equally brief discussion of baraminology, and criticism of id/creationism. We should merge it into creation science.–M^T 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the lead section

The lead section currently reads:

“

Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts show that all known life descended from one common ancestor.

”

This statement is sourced to [14], the National Academy of Sciences' definition of what constitutes science, and why they do not consider creation science to be a form of science. This source does not mention baraminology at all.

Surely it is original research to take a source which does not mention baraminology, and, applying its definition of science, use it to classify baraminology as pseudoscience? Furthermore, it's hardly NPOV to state that "baraminology is pseudoscience", since its advocates would certainly dispute this. Rather, we should say something like "the National Academy of Sciences, and the vast majority of the scientific community, define baraminology as a form of pseudoscience and as unrelated to science."

I don't question the fact that the mainstream consensus view among scientists is that creation science is pseudoscience. And I don't dispute that we should give that view appropriate weight in the article. But we should not treat this view as indisputable. There's a difference between saying "The vast majority of scientists believe that X is Y", which is a statement of fact and perfectly NPOV, and saying unequivocally "X is Y", which is inherently POV.

I won't rewrite that section myself because I don't feel I have appropriate expertise and couldn't find any useful sources, but it clearly needs reworking. Walton^One 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That baraminology is creation science is uncontroversial. That the NAS has stated that creation science (which includes baraminology) is "not science" and that it "lack[s] empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested" is WP:V. Likewise science's acceptance of common descent has plenty of evidence. I think this is a wording issue (stating the clear WP:SPADE without indulging in WP:SYNTH) rather than a WP:OR issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"That the NAS has stated that creation science (which includes baraminology) is "not science" and that it "lack[s] empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested" is WP:V. - I agree; so we should say that. But we shouldn't say that "baraminology is not science". As I said, it's entirely appropriate to say "the NAS says that X is Y", but it's entirely inappropriate to say unequivocally that "X is Y". Walton^One 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing views with facts. Views should be qualified in-text, but facts are qualified using citations. "Baraminology is pseudoscience" is not subjective opinion (like "cars are useful"), but objective fact (like "Mars is a planet"). It's backed up by the only body qualified to say what is and isn't pseudoscience: the 'scientific community', for which the NAS is speaking. I don't see any reason to point out that the NAS endorses its truth, but I see great reason to point out that it is true. Especially since mentioning the NAS, scientists, and the scientific community gives the impression that the facts are disputed (note the recent reverted edits). –M^T 06:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But the facts are disputed - by advocates of creation science. I recognise that they are a tiny minority within the scientific community, and that something like 99% of all scientists, including all national science academies, regard creation science as pseudoscience - and we should say that. But there are advocates of creation science who claim that it is real science, not pseudoscience, and I'm sure there are plenty of published secondary sources to that effect.

I do understand that there are limits to this - for example, we certainly shouldn't treat the statement "The Earth is spherical" as if it were disputed and controversial, on the grounds of the existence of the Flat Earth Society. But unlike flat-earthers, creation science advocates are a sufficiently large and significant minority that we shouldn't simply ignore their views and act as if there were no controversy.

Wikipedia is not here to educate the world about what is scientifically true and what is false, nor are we dedicated solely to promoting a mainstream scientific viewpoint. If there is a significant controversy in society as a whole, we should not treat that controversy as if it did not exist. And just because the NAS says something does not put it beyond the bounds of dispute.

I would be the first to admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here, since I'm no expert on creation science. But no one else seems to be addressing this problem. Walton^One 09:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, there's a difference between views and facts. "Is it science?" and "who thinks it's science?" are entirely different questions. The first needs immediate attention because descriptions of a pseudoscience sound to a layman like descriptions of a science. The second is strongly implicit, and is (directly) addressed in criticism and by "as an effort to make the views scientifically appealing" - which is right out of their article. ("Creationists think it's a science" is disputed, and "creationists state that creationists think it's a science" is not appropriate: it implies that they are deceiving.) If we, as you suggest, answer the second question instead of the first, we give the impression that the creationist view is at all important to knowing whether something is science or not. People reading "the NAS states X" would think "oh, they're talking about views", when they should think "ah, they're stating a fact".

Other points: 1) creationists are not within the scientific community. 2) More people know about the flat earth view than baraminology (234k vs 10k results in Google). 3) Your use of "mainstream" and "promoting" makes me want to not be nice. 4) When speaking about the natural world, we are dedicated to explaining what scientists say. For history, historians. For religion, theologians. 5) There is no controversy, and we're not here to teach it. Creationists were given the chance to contribute to science, just like everyone else, and their contribution flopped. –M^T 19:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I toned down its didacticism without (I hope) removing important facts. To give an over-the-top example, when you write that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, you don't need to add "AND THAT WAS BAD!!" The NPOV tutorial gives similar examples - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand your point, and I'm myself a bit annoyed with the way it was phrased, but I can't think of a better way to do it. Regarding your edit, it seems that some facts are lost. I'm concerned with the following:

1)"Baraminology is regarded outside creationism as pseudoscience." Baraminology is pseudoscience, period. It's tempting to talk about who thinks what, because it seems more fair to mention that some people do think it's a great way to do science, but we need to stick to the facts. I like your 'In creation science, baraminology...' wording, but it makes it even more important to answer the question "is baraminology science?" quickly. The nicer wording seems like a politician's non-answer: not inaccurate, but not really informative. And, these are just nitpicks, but the better way to say that would be "Scientists regard baraminology as pseudoscience", and it's not quite true: outside of creationists, most people (bible-belt christians, scientists) don't regard baraminology at all - they have no idea what it is.

2) "The generally accepted scientific view". Why qualify with 'generally'? The scientific community doesn't just mostly or generally accept evolution, it accepts it like it accepts gravity. I've actually avoided the word "accepted", because many people and most americans don't accept the scientific view.

3) "The scientific equivalent to baraminology is cladistics" Well, the study that baraminology is imitating is phenetics, but it's not an equivalent, especially in the factual sense.

The thing about these sorts of articles is that things are set up in a way that if you give an inch, a mile is taken. If you don't state that it's flat out not science, even the name "creation science" does the talking for you. We have to keep in mind the mindframe of readers, and many readers will come in falsely thinking that evolutionists are a minority, that scientists have an agenda, and that science has just a slice of the pie when it comes to talking about the natural facts.

Regarding didacticism, we're not saying it's good or bad. That's a subjective judgement, and I agree it doesn't belong. We're stating facts. "Baraminology is not science" is "hitler killed 6 million". If the article was talking about how baraminology is a cheap imitation of things science left behind in the 70s, how its big words refer to shallow grade school concepts, how it contradicts not just work in science but many theological traditions, and how doing work based on attempts to interbreed non-breeding animals (they have a database of animal pairings set up) is probably sin according to Leviticus 19:19, then that would be didactic. I don't think this version is. –M^T 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common universal descent proven?

This article claims that universal common descent is scientifically proven which is a rather large claim to be made regardless of whether you take evolution to be proven or not, as this seems to be just the mains scientific theory, there's nothing in the theory of evolution that means everything has to be descended from one life form82.36.120.66 (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read evidence of common descent. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)