Comments on: Baraminology and pseudoscience http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/ An opportunity to discuss the interface of faith, science, and culture Sun, 20 May 2012 14:04:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: caged vole http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-10683 caged vole Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:43:58 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-10683 Thank you (for the post, not the comments) I'm way behind on this exchange but having happened on it have been drawn on by the sheer interest (having no expertise at all). I found that quite fascinating and extremely instructive. Your logic and clarity are also a real pleasure! Thank you (for the post, not the comments)
I’m way behind on this exchange but having happened on it have been drawn on by the sheer interest (having no expertise at all). I found that quite fascinating and extremely instructive. Your logic and clarity are also a real pleasure!

]]> By: RBH http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-5432 RBH Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:15:33 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-5432 You're right that the popular conception of the species/genus classification system is flawed. However, actual biology has moved on past it. I commend to your attention John Wilkins' remarks on "species" and taxonomy. Since he's a philosopher of biology with a scholarly book on species concepts in press, he's worth paying attention to. You might start <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2006/10/a_list_of_26_species_concepts.php" rel="nofollow">here</a> and then move on to his 'Dimensions' paper referenced <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/11/species_as_objects_of_explanat.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The latter is behind a journal paywall, but a decent University library should have access to <i>Biology and Philosophy</i>. You’re right that the popular conception of the species/genus classification system is flawed. However, actual biology has moved on past it. I commend to your attention John Wilkins’ remarks on “species” and taxonomy. Since he’s a philosopher of biology with a scholarly book on species concepts in press, he’s worth paying attention to. You might start here and then move on to his ‘Dimensions’ paper referenced here. The latter is behind a journal paywall, but a decent University library should have access to Biology and Philosophy.

]]> By: Mark http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-5420 Mark Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:49:29 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2008/10/19/baraminology-and-pseudoscience/#comment-5420 Baloney. Taxonomy is imperfect because it is an attempt by humans to impose their notions of perfection on the natural world, which, despite our fervent wishes, rarely conforms to such notions. Species boundaries are indistinct because of natural and OBVIOUS variations in the characters of the organisms that we would like to bundle up and store in the bins we call "species". Are you denying the existence of this variation? Do you have evidence for clear and unchanging boundaries between all the taxa that we call "species"? Do you have evidence for your conspiracy theory (Because fuzzy boundaries serve evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies.)? Or is just another instance of creationists wishing that the natural world corresponded more perfectly with the stories that exist inside their heads? Baloney.

Taxonomy is imperfect because it is an attempt by humans to impose their notions of perfection on the natural world, which, despite our fervent wishes, rarely conforms to such notions.

Species boundaries are indistinct because of natural and OBVIOUS variations in the characters of the organisms that we would like to bundle up and store in the bins we call “species”.

Are you denying the existence of this variation?

Do you have evidence for clear and unchanging boundaries between all the taxa that we call “species”?

Do you have evidence for your conspiracy theory (Because fuzzy boundaries serve evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and
undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies.)?

Or is just another instance of creationists wishing that the natural world corresponded more perfectly with the stories that exist inside their heads?

]]>