A review of "Baraminology- Classification of Created Organisms" By Dr. Wayne Friar, Ph.D.
Originally published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal Vol. 37 No. 2 pp82-91 in September 2000
By Benjamin C. Stegman
In recent years there has been increased impedance within the ID movement to develop a classification system consistent with ID tenants; this classification system is called Baraminology, a word which means "the study of created kinds". According to Dr. Friar, the "...first scientific Baraminology conference was held in the summer of 1999 [with] an aggressive future program [being] envisaged.
Dr. Friar gives a brief introduction where he speaks of some of the same things as above, brushing quickly on the major differences between "systematics". Dr. Friar speaks of the difference between phenetics and phyletic systems. The author defines phyletic systems as ones "in which macroevolution (involving large changes) is assumed" while he speaks of the phonetic system as one which often "place[s] less stress upon evolution" because they are based upon appearances of features of the organisms and not necessarily their possible large scale evolutionary relationships." The researcher speaks of the barominologic system as accounting for the "...discontinuities or typology found in nature. [As maintained by the ID movement] This methodology appropriately has been termed discontinuity systematics." The author goes on to state that "the major purpose of Baraminology is to determine which organisms share common ancestry." The author infers that this can be accomplished through methods involving comparative morphology, or similarity in form. Dr. Friar gives the four major divisions in barominological classification as being the "...holobaramin, monobaramin, apobaramin, and polybaramin." The "holobaramin" classification refers to the "...known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry." The monobaramin class is defined by a man named Remine and quoted by Dr. Friar: "a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof)." The "apobaramin" class "...consists of the entirety of at least one holobaramin (Wise, 1999;2000). It may contain a single holobaramin or more than one holobaramins. ‘But it must contain the entirety of each of the one or more holobaramins within it’." Finally the polybaramin are simply defined "...as a group (two or more specimens) consisting of part of at least two holobaramins." A lot of terms are thrown around here, but the major point of it all is that only those organisms that stem from the same original creature are considered to be related in terms of common ancestry. I.e. horses, donkeys, and zebras would be considered related in the same way breeds of dogs and wolves would be. The author compares the baraminological classification to a forest while the traditional Linnaean system is essentially one very large multi branched tree. Dr. Friar goes on to give more examples and discussion of this system, moving on to some guidelines for determining baraminological relationships amongst organisms. Among those directly referring to comparative morphology are: "Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.", "Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.", and "Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments." In addition, although "...molecular studies with mitochondrial DNA and RNA were useful with some turtles", the author cited data that suggested that, at least for humans and primates, "the morphological (form) features such as teeth and bones as well as ecological characters including feeding and habitats were more valuable than chromosomal or molecular (hemoglobin and RNA) information." Dr. Friar continues by admitting that some people who are used to the Linnaean system may find the concept of Baraminology somewhat "preposterous", but states that "this admittedly bold scheme should not be thought of as a departure from reality." He then goes on to cite another systematic scheme called "PhyloCode” presented at the 1999 International Botanical Congress in St. Louis MO that would lead to the "...abolition of kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, etc."
Dr. Friar concludes his paper with the comment that Baraminology is really just a typological approach to "...classifying forms of life, both living and fossilized" and that "...because of the many difficulties (for example, convergences and reversals) which plague the macro evolutionary thinker, there is a growing receptivity to typology." Thus, while Baraminology holds promise for those in the ID movement, there may be some benefits for the traditional Darwinians too.