Talk:Baraminology

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)

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)

==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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference to run down and include possibly

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).