Is Baraminology Valid Science?

I don’t know of a more up-to-date summary of the “current” state of Baraminology. That is not to say that there isn’t much discussion but not much new has been added since this review.


I found this AIG article, and it’s the best discussion of the concept i have encountered:

I am still confused, however, about the treatment of Canids and Vulpes as one or two kinds, from their point of view.

To answer the title question: no.

I found this bit interesting:

"To some, using sequence data may seem more objective. Certainly identifying sequences is objective. It is the interpretation that is not. How does one distinguish between sequences that are the same because two creatures are from the same kind and sequences that are the same because God created them the same in two different kinds? Why do differences exist? Are they simply variability God placed in one created kind at Creation? Are they differences that have arisen within a kind since Creation? Are they created differences between different kinds? Are they differences that have arisen between two different created kinds that originally had identical or very similar sequences in a particular region? The bottom line is that we don’t have enough understanding of genetics to understand the significance of most sequence data. "

Of course we do have enough understandinng. AiG just doesn’t like the answers that understanding provides.

1 Like

And on some level, AiG doesn’t want to look too carefully because they don’t have much faith in their position.