By David MacMillan.
David has been fascinated by the creation/evolution controversy for many years. Growing up, he was fully committed to creationist apologetics. He purchased a lifetime charter membership to the Creation Museum and even had blog posts featured on the Answers in Genesis website. During college, he continued to actively pursue creation apologism as he earned a degree in physics, but began to recognize the mounting religious and scientific problems with young-earth creationism. His renewed investigation uncovered more and more misconceptions implicit in creationism, and he eventually rejected it as both theologically indefensible and scientifically baseless. He now writes extensively about young-earth creationism for several websites.
Note added December 30, 2015: This article has been cross-posted at Naturalis Historia, the blog of Joel Duff. As David MacMillan notes below, in a comment, âHe gets a slightly different readership and has attracted the attention of AiG before so it will be neat to see whether they deign to reply.â
As the strict young-earth creationists at Answers in Genesis work to complete their Ark Encounter âtheme parkâ, they have expended an impressive amount of energy organizing the millions of species of land animals alive today into a handful of small groups they call âbaraminsâ. They claim these groups represent the original created kinds of which Noah would have brought pairs onto the ark. This consolidation of numerous species into single âbaraminâ groups is driven primarily by the space on Noahâs purported vessel. The smaller the menagerie the Ark was purported to have contained, the more feasible it seems, and so the âbaraminologistsâ at Answers in Genesis have gone to great lengths to explain how the vast array of species today could have been represented by a relatively low number of ancestral pairs.
One well-known hallmark of modern young-earth creationism is the dogma of separation between âmicroevolutionâ and âmacroevolutionâ. Although early opponents of Darwinian evolution categorically denied that speciation or natural selection were possible at all, advances in genetics and biology made this position completely untenable. In response, creationists (particularly the young-earth crowd) protested that while âmicroevolutionâ was a viable, observable process in biology which they accept as âchange or speciation within a kindâ, the notion of âmacroevolutionâ, or âchange between kindsâ, remains impossible. These definitions beg the question by presuming such things as discrete âkindsâ exist, but creationists are nonetheless insistent that while adaptation or speciation within a particular âbaraminâ is observable (and, indeed, necessary in order to account for the present observed diversity of life), there is never any overlap between separate kinds. Their most well-known example of âkindsâ is the difference between cats and dogs, where they explain that the diversity of dog breeds is the result of âmicroevolutionâ from some original dog/wolf kind, but that dogs will never âmacroevolveâ into cats.
Unfortunately for the young-earth model, the push to minimize the number of animals riding on the Ark has exposed a major problem with this view. Ironically, this problem is perhaps nowhere more apparent than with the very clade (the technical/evolutionary equivalent of the term âkindâ) to which cats and dogs belong: Order Carnivora.
The Answers in Genesis website has repeatedly posted large, detailed lists of various species, families, and orders with attempts to organize them into baramins. One of the largest such postings, by retired veterinarian Jean Lightner, organizes the majority of Order Carnivora into eight distinct âbaraminsâ: felines, civets, dogs, hyenas, bears, weasels, mongooses, and red pandas.
Figure 1. The eight major carnivorous âbaraminsâ, as claimed by young-earth creationists at Answers in Genesis.