It turns out that in their disillusionment over scientific methods creationists are trying to establish their own way at classifying life. In fairness to them biological classification is a widely debated topic in various scientific fields today and there are many flaws to the classic Linnean system that is most commonly used. 'Baraminology' as this method is known is essentially a criticism of scientific classification in that it doesn't treat life on Earth in relation to evolutionary mechanisms, but rather in terms of when God created life on Earth. But let's actually get a justification from our old friends over at 'Answers in Genesis', who will happily explain to us why scientific classification is wrong.
____________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/classifying-life/
____________________________________________________________________
I'm sure many people would have already spotted the flaw in that 'The Bible' never explicitly explains how everything should be classified, and so therefore should never be used as evidence. Already the confines behind this theory are so restrictive, and the sole source revolves around a single book, meaning we have a study method that cannot evolve. This group of creationists forget about the combined works of scientific reasoning over the centuries because it said at one point in a work of literacy that man was created differently. For all we know apes and indeed many other species might well have been created in the same image as humans but because it wasn't explicitly stated in 'The Bible' it therefore cannot be true. 'The Bible' sure as hell never states that apes or other organisms not individually mentioned were created as inferior to humans, so that just leaves us in an awkward middle ground where we have to rely on guesswork and inferring as scientific reasoning instead of actual evidence. A prime example of this guesswork is just the plain rejection of evolution in this paragraph. Does this source use scientific reasoning or even a rational argument to disprove an argument? No, it just dictates something it believes to be true, despite the scientific fact that the similarities in the molecular information of organisms can easily be mapped and shown directional changes. I'd say that's a much better starting point than referencing anecdotal evidence. But no, apparently there are reasons why humans can't be classified as apes which this source explained in the paragraph below:
So just because humans allegedly have a spirit, this means they can't be classified with this system. What fucking use is a scientific method of classification that is defeated by a metaphysical philosophy? What if we find that other species have a soul as well? Sure it doesn't say any other organisms have a soul in 'The Bible', but it also doesn't say Jesus went for a shit, so obviously not everything detail was included in this book, and because it isn't a constantly evolving source of evidence, we'll never find out these crucial details. Surely it would be far more logical to state that humans and apes are related when they
share so much in common with each other rather than relying on metaphysical evidence that can't be scientifically proven. This is visual evidence as well, not just pseudo-scientific bullshit that relies on hypotheticals and guesswork to make any sense. But it turns out that 'Baraminology' has found a way to classify other animals not referenced in 'The Bible'.
Yes that's right, the method they do use looks very tenuous. What a surprise. I'm not saying that scientific classification isn't without its problems, and as for phylogenetic studies, well they're always in conflict with each other, but this creationist method is just so basic that it can't at any stage be used as counter evidence for the theory of evolution. I hate to go back to the example of humans, but if you really are distinguishing organisms based on genetic information and breeding studies then surely you must be aware that the similarities between us and apes are alarming. I don't care that humans are supposed to have souls, because that is theoretical and hasn't been proven, unlike scientific classification. However if what you're saying is that any organisms that can interbreed are part of the same 'baramin' then that's a fucking useless way of going about things because there's going to be loads more groups than in traditional classification, because I can tell you that
very few species can form hybrids with each other, and it's only organisms with very similar genes that can breed. Surely it would be far more logical to conclude that years of evolution were responsible for this incredible diversity in life rather than a 'special creation'. Not that there's any real reasoning behind this. Even this source admit that the groups may or may not be accurate, which is just an admission of guesswork. And yet even after admitting that this method is flawed 'Answers in Genesis' still go onto explain how this is a better method than the ones currently used by science.
It's all very well disagreeing with the idea of a single, common ancestor, but I can't see that displayed in this virtually identical system. The only difference is that this single, unknown, common ancestor originated with God. There seems to be this horrendous double standard of rejecting an idea that's almost entirely the same method as yours and then claiming that decision is based on a lack of evidence, when this creationist method is dictated by a single source. Surely what this source is describing is the process of evolution, just happening at a much faster rate, which is incredibly obnoxious from the people who flat out reject evolution. This classification system is just clutching at straws here, even creating what they define as an 'orchard', which again is almost identical to the mechanisms of evolution. Looking at a phylogenetic tree it becomes apparent that this is the same fucking thing. However this creationist method contains a huge gap in logic. What about species that appear to be in two different animal groups? You state that phylogeny and common ancestors are bollocks, so where would you classify egg laying mammals or transitional fossils such as the archaeopteryx? The alarming similarities between differing groups in nature, or clades as science calls them, makes this creationist explanation implausible, unless of course you believe in convergent evolution, which I somehow doubt this source does.
For speciation to happen at the rate this source is describing there would be huge visible changes happening in organisms worldwide on a frequent basis, but then creationists don't believe that changes over time are caused by evolution, so we're just back to the start of the argument in a huge circular gap of logic that can't be used to explain anything. Apparently this is still more logical than believing each organism descended from a common ancestor, which is incredible considering that the creationist method is just an impossibility. Natural selection is a process of evolution that takes a long time due to only affecting individuals, yet having effects on whole populations. That's a lot of genetic material needing to change for visible evolution to be apparent, and the only way this can occur is through the changing of random mutations, the majority of which have a negative influence on a population. In humans for example the rate of mutations deemed harmful is
roughly around four per X chromosome. Now if the speciation of homo sapiens was to be sped up to the rate that creationists claim that would leave us with two problems. The first is that the gene pools of each species would be absolutely fucked, and the most likely scenario would be that humans simply wouldn't be able to exist unless some miracle adaptation happened, that guess what would require the process of evolution. This just doesn't add up when you consider that serious genetic diseases are a large minority in the diverse human population, as well as a rarity in other organisms. The second problem is that this goes against the lines of succession that we see in the fossil record, but of course our creationist friends have an explanation for that too:
Well that's certainly a gross oversimplification of a now widely accepted scientific theory.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that
a number of dinosaurs had feathers, that although like the majority of science is contested, is far more plausible than your plain denial. Sure, you may not always be able to see full feathers formed like in the well preserved fossils of Archaeopteryx, but you can
clearly see where they attach. If this is the creationist alternative to scientific methods then I just don't see the problem with interpreting the evidence based on man's own perceptions. Clearly the evidence here easily trumps the dismissive points based on speculative evidence. All Baraminology encapsulates is proof that an allegorical work of literature should not be used as evidence to conflict with the constantly evolving world of science and understanding. In the words of H.L Mencken "
It is hard for the ape to believe he descended from man."
No comments:
Post a Comment