A List and Bibliography of Baraminology Studies T.C

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

A List and Bibliography of Baraminology Studies T.C OPEN ACCESS Report A List and Bibliography of Baraminology Studies T.C. Wood Core Academy of Science, Dayton, TN 37321 Abstract A list and bibliography of baramins identified by creationists is presented. The list is updated from that presented in the appendix to Wood’s “Animal and Plant Baramins” (CORE Issues in Creation 3:1-258). The list contains 70 putative holobaramins and 72 putative monobaramins, based on studies of 153 taxonomic groups. Editor: J.W. Francis Received January 11, 2012; Accepted September 13, 2016; Published September 26, 2016 After Marsh’s proposal of the baramin in the 1940s, studies 225 angiosperm baramins. Wise (2015) also used the PFCC to related to the identification of baramins languished until the estimate the number of frog baramins at 13-15. Wood (2011a) 1970s. In the past 20 years, such studies have exploded in and Beech (2012) approximated terrestrial mammal baramins by popularity. The following list (Table 1) represents an up-to- assuming that baramins were equivalent to the taxonomic rank date bibliography of baramin studies as of September 2016. of family. An extended exchange between Senter and Wood The list is an amended version of earlier lists in Wood (2008) explored continuity and discontinuity among birds and dinosaurs and Wood (2006). The list includes baramins identified by (Senter 2010, 2011; Wood 2011b; Garner et al. 2013). Lightner traditional methods that examine individual taxonomic groups et al. (2011) initiated a project to estimate all the ark kinds (hybridization, statistical baraminology, etc.) and taxa which using a suite of data. Subsequently, Lightner assigned mammal were studied by baraminological methods even though no formal (2012) and bird species (2013) to potential baramins. Hennigan baraminic classification was proposed. also participated in the project and estimated the baramins of As in previous versions of this list, the concept of the basic salamanders and gymnophionans (2013a), frogs (2013b), turtles type is here taken to indicate a monobaramin. Since basic types and crocodiles (2014a), tuataras, amphisbaenans, and snakes are defined by hybridization (Scherer 1993b), without necessarily (2014b), and other lizards (2015). Ross (2014) also estimated the considering evidence of discontinuity, a basic type would therefore number of baramins among extinct “amphibia.” Finally, Jeanson be equivalent in baraminology terms to a group of taxa united by (2013, 2015) probed the limits of baramins and intrabaraminic continuity, or a monobaramin (Wood et al. 2003). diversification using molecular criteria. Since these estimates do A problem arose with this revised list as a result of contradictory not lend themselves to the sort of listing of individual studies that is baraminic classifications. For example, whereas Hartwig-Scherer the object of this brief article, I elected to note their existence here (1998) separates australopiths and chimpanzees into separate but not include them in the formal list. Such largescale estimates basic types, Wood (2010) separated the australopiths into three will no doubt be of great value in the future as a guide to additional holobaramins and included chimps in one. Rather than select research in creationist biology. This list and bibliography will be one classification over another, I chose to list both contradictory of value specifically to those interested in studying and refining classifications where relevant. the methodology of identifying created kinds. A new innovation since the last version of this list has been Finally, a brief explanation of the arrangement of taxa in the list efforts to estimate large groups of baramins. Several authors seems to be in order. I openly admit that I selected an extremely have developed such estimates. Wise (2009) introduced the eclectic and idiosyncratic ordering and that this classification is post-Flood continuity criterion (PFCC), by which he estimated not intended to be authoritative. I resisted including a great deal that there were likely fewer than 500 mammalian baramins that of phylogenetic or molecular classifications that have become needed to be preserved aboard Noah’s Ark. Sanders (2013) popular in the past thirty years. For example, I kept the old used the same technique to estimate that there could be less than mammal orders Cetacea and Artiodactyla rather than the currently ©2016 The author. This article is open access and distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- duction in any medium as long as the original author and medium are credited. Citation: Wood. 2016. A list and bibliography of identified baramins. Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences 6:91-101. fashionable Cetartiodactyla. Following Linnaeus’ example, I In other cases, multiple studies using different methodologies placed humans first, then vaguely followed the order of McKenna seem to be converging on a single answer, as in the case of horses, and Bell (1997). For flowering plants, I adhered closely to which have been analyzed using statistical methods (Cavanaugh Cronquist (1981). In other cases, I followed the National Center et al. 2003) and by hybridization (Stein-Cadenbach 1993). In for Biotechnology Information’s non-authoritative Taxonomy other instances, multiple statistical analyses of different taxon Database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). In still other cases, I or character samples are converging on a consistent answer. For placed taxa wherever I thought them best placed. I believe the example, the holobaramin has been evaluated multiple times with ordering will make sense to most informed readers, and should different samples of fossils and characters, and the consistent result facilitate the browsing of baramins in well-known groups, such supports recognizing genus Homo (+ Australopithecus sediba) as amphibians or gymnosperms. To aid the reader in checking as the human holobaram (Wood 2010, 2016a; O’Micks 2016). for specific groups, I include here an alphabetical index (Table 2). Especially interesting is the case of Australopithecus sediba, which The current tally of created kinds listed here includes 70 was placed in the human holobaramin based on baraminological holobaramins and 72 monobaramins. We can also note studies analysis by Wood (2010), and recent phylogenetic analysis by such as Garner et al (2013) and Wood (2011b) that identified Dembo et al. (2015) confirms that classification. With regard to discontinuities between modern birds and dinosaurs. Since most the majority of baraminology studies, though, the humans and groups have been studied with only one analysis, most of these horses are an exception. Most do not have confirmation from monobaramins and holobaramins should be considered tentative. multiple studies. JCTS B: Life Sciences www.coresci.org/jcts Volume 6:92 Table 1. Baramins Listed according to Higher Taxa. (HB = holobaramin, MB = monobaramin, ? = uncertain) 1. Kingdom Animalia (ii) Family Talpidae ? (Wood 2008) a. Phylum Chordata (iii) Family Tenrecidae ? (Wood 2008) i. Subphylum Vertebrata (i) Order Chiroptera (1) Class Mammalia (i) Family Mormoopidae HB (Wood (a) Order Primates 2008) (i) Family Hominidae (ii) Family Phyllostomidae ? (Wood 1) Subfamily Homininae MB? 2008) (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (j) Order Cetacea a) Tribe Hominini HB (i) Suborder Archaeoceti HB? (Mace and (O’Micks 2016; Wood 2010, Wood 2005) 2013a, 2013b, 2016a, 2016b) (ii) Suborder Mysticeti HB (Mace and 2) Subfamily Australopithecinae Wood 2005) MB? (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (iii) Suborder Odontoceti a) Australopith 1 HB (Wood 1) Family Ziphiidae HB (Mace and 2010) Wood 2005) b) Australopith 2 HB (Wood 2) Superfamily Physeteroidea HB 2010) (Mace and Wood 2005) c) Genus Paranthropus HB 3) Other odontocetes HB (Mace and (Wood 2010) Wood 2005) 3) Subfamily Gorillinae MB? (k) Order Artiodactyla (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (i) Family Bovidae 4) Subfamily Ponginae MB? 1) Subfamily Caprinae MB (Hartwig-Scherer 1998) (Lightner 2006a) (ii) Family Cercopithecidae 2) Subfamily Bovinae MB? 1) Subfamily Cercopithecinae MB (Lightner 2007) (Hartwig-Scherer 1993) (ii) Family Camelidae MB (Wood et al. (iii) Family Galagonidae HB (Wood 2008) 1999; Wolfrom 2003) (b) Order Didelphimorphia (iii) Family Cervidae (i) Family Didelphidae HB (Wood 1) Subfamilies Cervinae + 2014a) Odocoileinae MB (Lightner (c) Order Dasyuromorphia 2006b) (i) Family Dasyuridae HB (Wood 2014a) (iv) Family Hippopotamidae (+ (d) Order Xenarthra Anthracotheres) HB (Wood 2008) (i) Suborder Cingulata HB? (Wood (l) Order Perissodactyla 2008) (i) Family Brontotheriidae MB (Wood (e) Order Lagomorpha 2008) (i) Family Leporidae HB (Wood 2008) (ii) Family Equidae MB (Stein- (f) Order Carnivora Cadenbach 1993; Cavanaugh et al. (i) Family Canidae MB (Siegler 1974; 2003; Garner 2003, 2016) Crompton 1993; Pendragon 2011) (iii) Family Rhinocerotidae ? (Wood (ii) Family Felidae HB (Wood 2008; 2008) Robinson and Cavanaugh 1998; (2) Class Aves Crompton and Winkler 2006; (a) Order Pelecaniformes Pendragon and Winkler 2011) (i) Family Sulidae ? (Wood 2005a) (iii) Family Ursidae MB (Tyler 1997; (ii) Family Phalacrocoracidae ? (Wood Hennigan 2010) 2005a) (iv) Family Viverridae MB? (Wood 2008) (b) Order Anseriformes (v) Family Procyonidae MB? (Wood (i) Family Anatidae MB (Scherer 1993a; 2014a) Wood 2008) (g) Order Pinnipedia (ii) Family Anhimidae MB? (Scherer (i) Family Phocidae HB (Wood 2008) 1993a) (h) Order Lipotyphla (Erinaceomorpha) (c) Order Ciconiiformes (i) Family Erinaceidae
Recommended publications
  • A Baraminological Analysis of the Land Fowl (Class Aves, Order Galliformes)
    Galliform Baraminology 1 Running Head: GALLIFORM BARAMINOLOGY A Baraminological Analysis of the Land Fowl (Class Aves, Order Galliformes) Michelle McConnachie A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2007 Galliform Baraminology 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Timothy R. Brophy, Ph.D. Chairman of Thesis ______________________________ Marcus R. Ross, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Harvey D. Hartman, Th.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Judy R. Sandlin, Ph.D. Assistant Honors Program Director ______________________________ Date Galliform Baraminology 3 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, without Whom I would not have had the opportunity of being at this institution or producing this thesis. I would also like to thank my entire committee including Dr. Timothy Brophy, Dr. Marcus Ross, Dr. Harvey Hartman, and Dr. Judy Sandlin. I would especially like to thank Dr. Brophy who patiently guided me through the entire research and writing process and put in many hours working with me on this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their interest in this project and Robby Mullis for his constant encouragement. Galliform Baraminology 4 Abstract This study investigates the number of galliform bird holobaramins. Criteria used to determine the members of any given holobaramin included a biblical word analysis, statistical baraminology, and hybridization. The biblical search yielded limited biosystematic information; however, since it is a necessary and useful part of baraminology research it is both included and discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation, Evolution, and the Historical Evidence
    Creation,Evolution, and the Historical Evidence DUANE T. GISH classifiedand more or less colligated by being broughtunder general laws, and which includes trustworthymethods for the discoveryof new truth withinits own domain"(emphasis added). Thus,for a theoryto qualifyas a scientifictheory, it mustbe supportedby eventsor processesthat can be observedto occur,and the theorymust be useful * Althoughthe views presentedin this article are not acceptable to the majorityof life scientists,the in predictingthe outcome of future natural phenom- ena or laboratoryexperiments. An additionallimita- editorial stafffeels that our membershipshould be Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/35/3/132/30638/4444262.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 aware of the creationistposition as described by tion usually imposedis that the theorymust be Duane T. Gish. capable of falsification;that is, one mustbe able to conceivesome experiment the failure of which would disprovethe theory. It is on thebasis ofsuch criteria F OR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of the issuesto be dis- thatmost evolutionists insist that creation be refused cussedin thispaper, I mustbegin by definingevolu- considerationas a possibleexplanation for origins. tionand creation.When the term evolution is used it Creationhas not been witnessedby humanobserv- will referto the generaltheory of organicevolution, ers,it cannotbe testedscientifically, and as a theory or themolecules-to-man theory of evolution. Accord- it is nonfalsifiable. ing to this theoryall livingthings have arisen by The generaltheory of evolution (molecules-to-man naturalistic,mechanistic, evolutionary processes from theory)also failsto meetall threeof thesecriteria, a single living source,which itselfhad arisen by however.Dobzhansky (1958), while seeking to affirm similarprocesses from inanimate matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Original Sin: Accounting for Evil in the World by Dr
    Evolution and Original Sin: Accounting for Evil in the World by Dr. Daryl P. Domning and Dr. Joseph F. Wimmer The Washington Theological Consortium (WTC) produced this discussion guide as part of a series titled "At the Crossroads of Science and Theology." The series aims to connect the interests and expertise of faculty in Washington-area theological schools with the questions and concerns of people in congregations regarding the relationship between science and religion. We hope to bring theological reflection and scientific research to adult education groups, in an interdisciplinary and ecumenical exploration of fundamental issues in this relationship. You may contact WTC at (202) 832-2675 for further information about this series, or visit the organizaton's Web site at http://washtheocon.org . The$Washington$Theological$Consortium$is$a$community$of$Theological$Schools$of$diverse$Christian$ traditions—with$partners$in$education,$spirituality$and$interfaith$dialogue—that$supports$ ecumenical$unity$and$interfaith$understanding$in$four$ways:$ $ • By$supporting$ecumenical$study$and$dialogue$that$explores$the$distinct$theological$traditions$of$ the$churches,$analyzes$barriers$to$Christian$unity,$and$explores$opportunities$for$shared$public$ witness.$$ $ • By$providing$an$ecumenical$context$for$equipping$clergy$and$laity$to$serve$the$mission$and$ ministry$of$the$Church$in$the$world$through$diverse$communities$and$in$ways$that$witness$to$ the$unity$that$is$ours$in$Christ.$$ $ • By$providing$member$institutions$the$means$of$sharing$their$rich$theological,$spiritual,$and$ practical$resources$by$developing$programs$and$services$that$are$best$done$in$collaboration,$ and$which$enrich$the$mission$and$programs$of$each$member.$$ $ • By$engaging$in$interreligious$study$and$dialogue,$with$members$of$other$faiths,$$that$explore$the$ differences$and$shared$values$of$the$theologies$and$practices$of$the$great$world$religions.$$$ $ $ About the Authors Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Destroys the Evolutionary Paradigm
    SCIENCE DESTROYS THE EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM An Inservice Manual for Young-Earth Creationists Free Images – Snappygoat.com Materialistic Naturalism, an Immoral and Incoherent Philosophy!!! Dr. Jim Pagels – 4/18/2018 1 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:9-11 This book along with its predecessors including Apologetic Resources, Lesson Plans for Biblical Apologetics and Touching Lives through Apologetics, a Counseling Perspective are offered free for personal and professional use in ministry, being available as downloads on the Michigan District website under schools-curriculum. Scriptural references are typically taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) although the King James Version (KJV) is also periodically utilized. 2 Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..…….5 Preface…………………………………………………………………………………………...6 Intended Audience ……………………………………………………………………………....8 Inservice Perspective……….…………………………………………………………….……..9 Inservice Questionnaire……………………………………………………………..…………10 1. Evolution, an Attack on the Supernatural Nature of God…………………………………..21 2. In Search of Truth…………………………………………………………………………..23 3. Creation Apologetics, Simple for Some, Incomprehensible to Others………..……..…….35 4. Two Typical Approaches to Young Earth Creationism……………………………………38 5. The Absolute Veracity of the Supernatural…………………….…………………………..40 6. A Tactical Approach to Creationism………………………….………………………..…..43 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Theism Everything Can Be Agnosticism Explained on the Basis of Natural Law
    O3 SB Three • Spring Board to Life • Chapter Three • By Pastor Dan Domke Six Day Creation Number of Days of Creation. –Six Day Creation not millions of years. –With in six days, everything was created. –Plants – for food –All the animals, fish, birds, cattle etc. –And finally Man Genesis is scientific, just in a different way than modern day science. • Lineus – classification Key – By structure • e.g. radial summitry, bi-lateral summitry • Biblical classification Key – By habitat • Sky –Water- Land • Not unscientific just a different methodology Baraminology- Bara=created / Min = Kind •Study of created kind. Science - Knowledge • Descriptive Science - Based on Fact • Prescriptive • Based on Assumptions Secular World View –Evolutionary Materialism –Uniformitarianism –Man a chance and random product of evolution, has no more intrinsic value than other animals. In practice – man –Man is lefthas to fendless for value Himself. than – No God or if there is He/She is impersonal.the animals. Biblical World View 1. Creationism 2. Catastrophism 3. Man is the result of special creation, created by God to be in fellowship with Him. And to care for the planet. 4. Man is above the animals and has infinite value. 5. God provides everything for man’s life, and knowledge, (science) etc. 6. God is the living God, and He is personal. Two World Views Compared REALITY Naturalism The material universe is all that exists. Reality is "one-dimensional." There is no such thing as a soul or a spirit. Atheism Everything can be Agnosticism explained on the basis of natural law. Existentialism Two World Views Compared Naturalism MAN Man is the chance product of a biological process of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Flood of Noah
    THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. DEDICATION This book is dedicated with deep appreciation to Joe and Beryl Nisbet, two “wee Scots” who, as husband and wife, have devoted their entire adult lives to teaching the Gospel in their native Scot- land and who, through their many personal sacrifices and exemplary conduct on behalf of the Lord and His church, have become such an endearing example for everyone around them. APOLOGETICS PRESS, INC. 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752 © Copyright 1986 Revised Editions © Copyright 1999, 2005 ISBN: 0-932859-78-X All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in articles or critical reviews. -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................1 Mankind’s Response to the Genesis Flood .....................................1 CHAPTER 2 THE FLOOD IN SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY....................5 The Importance of the Doctrine of the Global Flood ......................5 The Reason for the Flood................................................................6 Supernatural Elements of the Flood ................................................8 The Ubiquity of Flood Stories.........................................................9 CHAPTER 3 THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH.......................................11 The Antediluvian World ...............................................................11 The Necessity of Constructing
    [Show full text]
  • Creation /Evolution
    Creation /Evolution • •^'•vs A Creationist Walk Through the Grand Canyon : Issue XX : : :: CONTENTS ; . Spring 1987 ARTICLES :;/ •:: ::- •; '•• •;. ':'••. •';•• ••• •' •••••••• •• .'• •. I A. Creationist Walk Through the Grand Canyon by Thomas Mclver 13 Fossil Insects: Pests of Creatioh by Gene Kritsky 19 Design; Created Kinds, and Engineering by FrancisJ, Arduini 25 Tbe Origin of Species by Punctuated Equilibria byi Frank J, Sonleitner : •REVIEWS.. :. .•-.-;;.: • ;• •;. ; • . .. ; . ; ; . ' ; 31 Reviews . ; . ' .'. ;. .• ' ;' ' V • v .". ... : . 39 Letters to the Edit or :• • • .. LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... For years, the Institute for Creation Research has made much of its fre- quent student expeditions to the Grand Canyon. Since we have so often published investigations of other creationist "field research." we began to feel that it was about time we reported on one of these. Torn Mclver, a cultural anthropologist who had gained the confidence of the ICR. felt the same way and. In June 1985, went down into the Grand Canyon with a creationist study group. His recently completed and quite detailed report on the actual nature of that expedition, this issue's lead article, is an eye-opener. If you had thought that creationist "field research" on Mount Ararat and along the Paluxy River was short on scientific merit and objectivity, you will be amazed at how much less there is of it in these regular ICR treks. According to Henry Morris's cover letter accom- panying the April .1987 Acts & Facts, creationist students will once again enjoy "the inspiration and excitement of the ICR Grand Canyon Tour, climaxed by a glorious Easter morning service on the Canyon rim." From Tom Mclver's article, you will see how Morris's statement sums up the actual purpose of these trips so nicely.
    [Show full text]
  • ANOPA: 'Statistical' Systematics for Young-Earth Creationists
    ARTICLE ANOPA: ‘Statistical’ Systematics for Young-Earth Creationists Dan Bolnick, University of Texas, Austin reationists has been working hard to make been active members in the Baraminology Study Ctheir views appear as legitimate science. Part Group, whose website proclaims its “ultimate goal is of this strategy has been to get papers pub- to develop origin models that accommodate empiri- lished in peer-reviewed scientific journals. cal data in a biblical framework of earth history Creationists have used two strategies to achieve this through scientifically sound analysis of biological data goal. First, the recent review paper on “intelligent and scholarly analysis of biblical texts” design” (Meyer 2004) in the Proceedings of the (<http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/aboutmain.html>). Biological Society of Washington was published by To this end, Cavanaugh has been developing a bypassing the normal peer review process.According quantitative method for identifying whether a collec- to a recent statement from the Council that publishes tion of species represent a single “created kind”or are the journal, the editor Richard Sternberg handled the sufficiently distinct as to qualify as members of differ- paper in a manner “contrary to typical editorial prac- ent holobaramins. This method,called ‘Analysis of tices”(<http://www.biolsocwash.org/>). Pattern’(ANOPA) is touted as a method to “reduce the The second approach is to sanitize the content of dimensionality of multi-dimensional data with mini- the paper. Two other papers written by creationists mal loss of information and no assumptions about the have been published in peer reviewed journals in data’s distribution”(Wood and Cavanaugh 2003: 2).
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning Linda Ebert Student Handout 1
    A Bible Overview, Session 1: The Beginning Student Handout Genesis 1:1: Attributes of God 1. God is eternal • By creating a beginning, God started time 2. God is the Creator • God created “ex nihilo”= out of nothing 3. God is separate/distinct from His creation Day 1: • Time • The “heavens” = space Building blocks of the universe: • matter • light The light-dark cycle establishes a system of measuring time Day 2: space between the waters= sky Day 3: God separated the waters and dry land appeared and vegetation Day 4: “God made two great lights”: sun and moon and also stars Day 5: fish and birds • KIND: if two things can breed together they are of the same created kind. Day 6: • animals • humans: “Let us make humans beings in our image to be like us.” Genesis 1:26 o “Elohim”= plural noun with singular meaning o “Trinity” concept introduced: ABOV- 2020 Spring Session 1: The Beginning 1 Linda Ebert Student Handout www.abibleoverview.org o One God, three distinct Persons, all involved in creation: § Genesis 1:2 § John 1:1-4 o humans, male and female, made “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27) o charge to humans Genesis 2 God formed Adam from the dust of the ground & breathed life into him God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden • “tree of life” • “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” o Warning: may eat of every tree “except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because “If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.” • God made Eve from Adam’s rib o “male” and “female”, “man” and “wife”, “united into one” o Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:4,5 ABOV- 2020 Spring Session 1: The Beginning 2 Linda Ebert Student Handout www.abibleoverview.org Creation: God says vs the world says: God says: • He existed before creation • He created time (a beginning), measured in days • He spoke creation into existence • His Creation is ordered and He sustains it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning Linda Ebert Script Facilitator
    ABOV- Session 1: The Beginning Script Facilitator Slide: Summary Introduction • Bible is unique in: o how it’s written o it’s circulation o it’s survival o its predictive prophecy- 1000 of them with 700 already fulfilled o its content • Organizational structure: Historical Highway handout • 12 themes will be used, which connect dots throughout history of Bible • YouVersion.com Start video- Session 1: The Beginning (Video clip SR-01A 00:00.0) Welcome to A Bible OverView session one and the book of Genesis which means "beginning." It starts out telling us the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth in an easy to follow chronological manner. Although there were no witnesses to creation and we cannot recreate it in a laboratory, the Bible's account reveals the creation process using days with God as the Creator. Let’s read about these days starting with chapter one. * Day 1. Genesis 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the first ten words of Genesis 1:1 we learn about several attributes of God. First, we learn God is eternal, when it says, “In the beginning God…” This means God has no beginning. He has always been. He was not created and is outside of time. By creating a beginning, God started time. We think of time as a line. We “remember” the past, “live” in the present, and “expect” the future. But there was no time before creation. End video SR-01A (1:28:36) Slide: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 • How would you answer someone who asked “Who created God?” o No one did.
    [Show full text]
  • The CRS Ekinds Research Initiative: Where We Have Been and Where We Are Headed from Here
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 8 Print Reference: Pages 185-190 Article 25 2018 The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here Jean K. Lightner Liberty University Kevin Anderson Creation Research Society Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings Part of the Biology Commons DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Lightner, J.K., and K. Anderson. 2018. The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 185–190. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. Lightner, J.K., and K. Anderson. 2018. The CRS eKINDS research initiative: Where we have been and where we are headed from here. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 185–190. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. THE CRS eKINDS RESEARCH INIATIVE: WHERE WE HAVE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED FROM HERE Jean K.
    [Show full text]
  • How Postcreationism's Claim of Hyperrapid Speciation Opposes Yet
    Duf et al. Evo Edu Outreach (2020) 13:9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w Evolution: Education and Outreach REVIEW ARTICLE Open Access Dissent with modifcation: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid speciation opposes yet embraces evolutionary theory R. Joel Duf1* , Thomas R. Beatman2 and David S. MacMillan III3 Abstract The development of creationism to its multiple modern forms has been made possible in part by its appropriation and misuse of mainstream scientifc terms. Here we illustrate how anti-evolutionary advocates have redefned the terms macroevolution and microevolution to advance their view of the origins of biological diversity. We identify and describe an ideological movement within modern young-earth creationism we call postcreationism, those that have embraced a hyperrapid speciation model of the origin of biological diversity. Postcreationism is demonstrated with specifc examples from young-earth creationist publications and Ark Encounter creationist theme park, with takea- ways for addressing these ideas in evolutionary biology education. Keywords: Young-earth creationism, Creationist, Macroevolution, Microevolution, Evolution, Natural selection, Postcreationism, Ark Encounter Introduction of living things, including humans, on earth were inde- Young-earth creationism, also known variously as literal- pendently created at about the same time as the earth. day creationism, literal creationism, or creation science, In their description of natural history, the supernatural is a movement dedicated to providing
    [Show full text]