Baraminology

See also Constancy of Species

Microevolution and Evolution "within the kinds"

"Baraminology" is a portmanteau word made from Hebrew "bara" ("created"), Hebrew "min" ("kind") and Greek "logia" ("study"). It refers to a variety of concepts that reconcile the common descent of Biology with divine creation according to a literal reading of Genesis 1:11-24:

¹¹ And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ... ²⁰ And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." ²¹ So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²² And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." ... ²⁴ And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. — RSV

Believers in Baraminology, also known as Evolution within the Kinds, understand that these kinds (or "baramins") were created independently, following which evolution has proceeded within them. Believers in a Universal Flood sometimes propose that Noah's Ark saved representatives of the kinds, which evolved rapidly after the Deluge into the species that are known today. By equating evolution within the kinds with micro-evolution they continue to argue against theoretical evolution on the whole, calling it macro-evolution. As used by Creationists, however, the terms micro- and macro-evolution do not correspond to evolutionary biologists' usage. See Microevolution and Macroevolution.

An essay from "Answers in Genesis": Ingle, M. E., & Aaron, M., A Baraminic Study of the Blood Flukes of Family Schistosomatidae Answers Research Journal, 8, 327–337 (2015).

Brother Alan Fowler published an article in the Testimony Magazine (Nov. 2009) "to show that the language of Genesis 1 actually supports . . . ‘micro-evolution’ of species by natural selection". It concluded:

Far from being a slippery slope leading to Darwinism, the knowledge that both Genesis and nature support the microevolution of species greatly assists us in our fight against Darwinian macroevolution. This it does by allowing us to show the fundamental limitations of species evolution. It also provides us with common ground on which we can enter into a potentially fruitful debate with Darwinian biologists. The alternative is to continue in a ‘stand-off’, with neither side listening to the other.

See Continuing Creation.

Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin

Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1816-1893), known as Netziv, is quoted by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks as explaining "According to their kind" in Genesis 1:21 in these words:

Scripture teaches that even though at the time of the Divine [creative] word, many kinds of sea creatures and birds emerged, nonetheless God continued to create other species from those that had already appeared . . .

Note that this statement does not necessarily imply baraminology as believed by some 19th and 20th Century creationists (as described above), since it does not touch on the process(es) by which "many kinds of sea creatures and birds emerged" in the beginning. — Bruce (talk)

Opposing Views

AACE

An AACE discussion paper The Bible's Teaching on Creation quotes these same verses to support the idea of Constancy of Species.

The Bible Magazine

The Bible Magazine (Vol 27 No. 2) claims that "if Theistic Evolution is to have any credibility then it follows that the Bible would provide clear evidence for the evolutionary process" citing Amos 3:7 (q.v.) as proof-text.

Responses from biologists

Mainstream biologists disagree with these positions, as Wikipedia puts very clearly in its opening paragraph under the title "Common Descent" complete with abundant references: "All living beings are in fact descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth, according to modern evolutionary biology."

(Alternatively, as of October 2022 after various "edit wars," "According to modern evolutionary biology, all living beings could be descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth.")

Live link to Wikipedia: Common Descent

From R. Joel Duff

For an example of mainstream biology here is a brief extract from R. Joel Duff et al. Dissent with modification: how postcreationism’s claim of hyperrapid speciation opposes yet embraces evolutionary theory

Because YECs believe that “every land-dwelling, air-breathing animal in the world today owes its existence to its Ark ancestors”, they . . .  consolidate as many extant species as possible into broader and broader parent groups—the baramins or created kinds . . . . This is primarily the result of space limitations in Noah’s proposed vessel. The smaller the menagerie purported to have been contained in the Ark, the more feasible the whole narrative becomes . . .  [They] come up with ways that the vast array of extinct and extant land-dwelling vertebrate species (all other animals including aquatic vertebrates, plants, fungi, and innumerable protists and bacteria would have had to fend for themselves during the global deluge) could have been represented by the lowest possible number of Ark pairs—possibly as few as 1400 archeobaramins or basal ancestral pairs . . . .

. . .  the challenges they faced provide a surprisingly clear picture of exactly where their pseudoscience breaks down. How does the young-earth creationist distinguish the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution? Postcreationists have generally avoided any definite answer to this question, other than to insist that there can never be any overlap between separate baramins or any ancestral heritage shared between groups. . . .