You may have heard about another attempt to clone a woolly mammoth. This project is being carried out by scientists from around the world, and it’s pretty cool. Meanwhile, at places like the Institute of Creation Research (ICR), Creation Scientists are doing something else. Instead of participating or trying to resurrect a competing extinct animal, they are following the mammoth story in the news and trying to reinterpret the results. As you can read in this ICR article, they believe that the discovery of viable DNA would prove that woolly mammoths were around recently:
“If a scientist ever successfully clones a mammoth, it will be partly because the source DNA was not very old.”
Although the discovery of this DNA is well within the scientific community’s understandings and predictions, the ICR is leading their readers to believe that the discovery of this DNA itself somehow challenges modern scientific conclusions about the age of the earth. They are waiting to jump out and yell “we told you so!” if the scientists succeed, but are not actually willing to bet on the mission’s success or conduct their own attempt.
Here’s the thing, the ICR and Answers in Genesis believe that every animal was around “recently,” and they even argue that representatives of all creatures, including dinosaurs, stepped off the ark no more than 4,500 years ago. If that’s the case, Creation Scientists should be able to uncover DNA from dinosaurs, trilobites, and other animals which evolutionists claim to have been extinct millions of years ago just as easily as those scientists discovered mammoth DNA (especially since mainstream science is allegedly off by billions of years and only the creationists know the truth). Finding T-Rex tissue would be a real shocker, and that would give Creation Science credibility and media attention. If they make a relevant discovery, then we can test their claims of persecution. If they aren’t adding to the progress of science and medicine, they can’t complain about being ignored.
The other statement they were trying to make in the article is even stranger:
“If a scientist ever successfully clones a mammoth, it will be partly because the mammoth was a variety within the elephant kind”.
So an elephant may give birth to a mammoth, and this is evidence that animals only produce after their own kind? These are two different species. Evolutionary biology predicts they are related, but the ICR is trying to argue that this proves Genesis 1:24-25 (that animals produce after their kind) and that the elephant “kind” includes mammoths and mastodons. The word “kind” is not clarified in the Bible, and determining which animals would be sorted into which kind is a speculative, human endeavor they call bariminology.
The conclusions of Creation Scientists are immediately accepted and propagated by many Christian leaders and broadcasters eager to have answers (no matter how weak) to the challenges of biological, geological, and cosmological discoveries. They bypass the rigors of peer-review and other checks and balances, claiming that academic bias has pushed Creation Scientists into the margins and denied them a fair say. By casting all established scientists as rabid atheists out to get them, these proponents distract their listeners from examining the questionable methods with which they gather their information. If they do not step up their game and do some real science, then I can only hope that more Christians will recognize this faulty system and prevent messy logic from dulling their ability to think critically and come to sound conclusions.
mod synthesis 
Jamin
February 6, 2011
It would be so cool if they clone a mammoth! Speaking of classifying animals should a platypus be classified as a mammal? They lay eggs! EGGS! Grrrrr! 🙂
Jamin
modsynth
February 6, 2011
Maybe someday soon we will fire up the grill and cook up some mammoth burgers while the kids play with egg-laying mammals and carnivorous plants.
Rev Tony Breeden
March 5, 2011
You truly do not get that the Biblical kind [or baramin] is NOT analogous to a species, do you? It’s like you disagree with Creationists without comprehending what it is we’re claiming.
Yes, extant elephants and mammoths likely belong to the same created kind; This isn’t just ICR’s position on the matter, it’s AiG’s position, it’s mainstream Biblical Creationism’s position. You’re confalting it with species because you suppose it is invalid as Creationists interpret the term kind, which is only begging the question on your part. You accurately state that evolutionists predict that mammoths and elephants are related, but you dismiss the fact that Creationists equally predict that mammoths and elephants are related. Seriously, sir, how are you giving Creationism the benefit of the doubt in any way, shape or form?
And we have found Dino tissue and DNA; were you being facetious?
I’m not sure whether to venture the fact that there are Creationist peer-reviewed journals…
Rev Tony Breeden
http://DefendingGenesis.org
Jamin
March 6, 2011
Dear Reverend,
Far be it from a layperson like me to weigh in on the cerebral output of an intellectual giant such as yourself but until your post I was unfamiliar with the term baramin or baraminology as a science in general. You’ve done this blog a great service by introducing the concept. Thank you for that. After some quick research I’ve pretty much gotten the gist and trust that although I was hard pressed to find a source that didn’t include the word psuedoscience in it’s definition baraminology truly seems to provide ample defense to a literal interpretation of Genesis and creation science as well.
That is of course until my discovery of antibaraminology. Antibaraminology is a new scientific study developed on March 6, 2011 by Jamin Mears. It claims that all animals grouped in baramins [or Biblical Kind] were eaten up by other groups of animals who developed from a common ancestor into what they call antibaramins [or Species]. This accounts for an interesting theory on the extinction of mammoths as it is widely held by antibaraminologists that the last mammoth was ground into burger and served medium-well with a side of platypus eggs over-easy to a hungry group of Cro-Magnon cave-dwellers. Similarly an over-eager marketing push by Neanderthal food giant Cretaceous Fried Chicken (“Opposable Thumb Lickin’ Good”) ended too soon the reign of the majestic dodo bird.
I realize that this specific branch of science is relatively new but after extensive research on the subject I’ve come to determine that is has actually passed all of the same scientific credibility checks as baraminology and therefore I have no problem incorporating it or any of it’s claims as fact into discussions I may have about what those silly “real scientists” may or may not hold as evidence. As if scientific testing or peer-review can add any credibility to an argument (*guffaw*). The bottom line is if I want something to be true bad enough it just has to be.
I would encourage open discussion on the merit of this new science versus tried and true scientific concepts such as baraminology. Although I realize that you may take issue with some of the content of antibaraminology I’m sure you won’t take issue with it’s methodology.
Reverently,
Jamin
Jamin
March 7, 2011
Dear Rev Tony Breeden,
It has been some time since my previous reply and I have awaited your response with bated breath. None has come. I realize now the reason for this is quite possibly that although anitbaraminology itself is a science grounded in iron-clad logic; I myself carry no real credentials to speak of. I’ve thought long and hard on this dilemma and have tirelessly labored to recall a title I may hold that carries as much clout with the scientific community as the title Reverend. Unfortunately being hohm-skülled the majority of my academic career has provided me with only a high school diploma that I hand-decorated using a BEDAZZLER in art class minutes before I stood trembling in my living room before the School Dean (my father who was named after Dean Martin). He presented me with it in front of an audience that consisted of my immediate family and seven extended family members (including both sets of grandparents). My mother, beaming with pride then immediately took the diploma (which at best is the equivalent of a GED and at worst a meaningless piece of paper which is in no way a representation of the legality of my education), hung it on our refrigerator with colorful alphabet magnets and pinned a gold star on my jacket. Aside from that I hold under my belt one semester of community college of which I dropped out after being quite uncomfortable partnering in art history class with a boy wearing a dress and failing several biology classes for referring to what I now know to be called dinosaurs as “Jesus Ponies” (I was taught Creation Science throughout all of my previous studies).
With that being said, last night I was able to leverage the hours and hours of valuable time I’ve invested into the MMORPG World of Warcraft into completing an achievement which granted me an in game title of the same name. I, elated at receipt of this award immediately logged out to verify my suspicion that my new title would lend me at least as much credence with the scientific community as the revered title Reverend. After several google searches and some less than pleasant email responses from a few notable names in various scientific circles I am pleased to tell you that as far as science is concerned we now hold equal footing.
I now eagerly anticipate response from my new scientific peer.
Sincerely,
Champion Of The Frozen Wastes – Jamin Mears
Jamin
March 8, 2011
Dear Rev Tony Breeden,
I was genuinely hoping to hear from you by now but alas it seems my requests have fallen on deaf ears. As upsetting as this has been for me I do not hold you at fault. In discussion with my Guild Leader last night while raiding through Utgarde Pinnacle I realized the reason for this is most probably that my new title of Champion Of The Frozen Wastes may be a bit intimidating (I can be such a noob sometimes). When I asked him about it he replied that our guild does not have the rank of Reverend however if we did then Champion would definitely be the higher of the two. After much deliberation and a hefty donation by me of 15,000 Gold to the Guild Bank I have convinced him to promote you to the equivalent rank of Illustrious Grand Wizard under the stringent condition that you attend all of this month’s guild meetings. In preparation for your acceptance of this exalted honor I have taken the liberty of creating a World of Warcraft character (toon) for you to attend the meetings with.
The character I have chosen for you is called a Tauren. I felt this half-man, half-cow race would be the most fitting for you due to the fact that if the remains of one of these fantastic creatures were ever to be discovered it would most assuredly be categorized as a transitional fossil by all parties involved.
I trust this will resolve any status issues there may be between us and hope to enjoy questing with you in Azeroth.
Best Regards,
Champion Of The Frozen Wastes – Jamin Mears
Jamin
March 9, 2011
Dear Illustrious Grand Wizard Tony Breeden,
I miss you.
modsynth
March 7, 2011
Thanks for stopping by Tony, and you have pointed out the need for me to clarify some things.
Firstly, I did not make that analogy about baramins and species – sorry if my shortened post left you with the wrong impression. The original ICR article didn’t mention baraminology, only that a successful cloning would prove Gen 1:24. Since “kind” is not defined, I gave my readers a link to the creationist discipline interested in determining what a “kind” could mean, even though none of that is clear in the Genesis text the ICR cited. I was trying to be helpful, but I wasn’t writing an article on baraminology. I’m very familiar, and I’ve been a longtime subscriber to Todd’s Blog. He’s a leader in that field, and I have a lot of respect for him. I wish the ICR, AIG, CMI, and the other more prominent YEC sources were as informed, fair, and thorough as Todd Wood. That said, I stand by my assessment that baraminology is still a human effort. It may try to insert a definition into the Bible, but it’s based on scientific studies of relationships and not anything clearly stated in Genesis. It’s man’s wisdom as much as anything else.
My original point was that they were trying to state that a successful cloning would prove their understanding right, but I believe that point fails miserably. At best, they could defend the implications of one species giving birth to another by explaining the concept of baramins, but to try to say this proves something is quite a leap. Besides, the creationist prediction is the same as evolutionary science’s, so why would creationism score a point? I’d call it a draw. I wasn’t using it against the ICR, only saying that ICR can’t claim victory on this one, which is what they were trying to do in the article yet were unwilling to make a solid bet on it or try to clone something themselves.
As for dino DNA, if you’ve got it, then lets make a Jurassic park. If you are talking about Woodward’s little segment, or Schweitzer’s tissue, than I hope you are aware of the case against those two findings. All of that criticism would of course be laid to rest if a clone is made, which is what the ICR should try since they and AiG have cash and scientists on hand. That would be worth more than a million articles and books. Why should it be any harder than the mammoth? It wouldn’t be conclusive proof because someone could still try to argue that the DNA was somehow preserved over that time, but it would make a much better point than the successful cloning of a mammoth – which is what the ICR is somehow trying to use as evidence to their point. Again, I’m not using the cloning against them, only saying that they can’t take credit for it.
As for the creationist journals (which I follow), I do not think they supply rigorous peer review as found in mainstream journals. Seeing Lisle’s resent paper get ripped up so adequately, even by YECs like Todd Wood raises serious doubts to the “rigors” of the in-house journals of groups like Answers in Genesis. Materials from Reasons to Believe were recently reviewed by Dr. Venema at Biologos and were found quite lacking. These are the kinds of mistakes thorough reviewers wouldn’t tolerate, and I would argue that this is the real reason why these papers don’t make it into the more influential journals rather than the persecution purported in “Expelled.” I suppose I could have been more clear there, also. I guess this post was too brief. I’ll try to provide more thorough explanations for the opposing views and why I disagree in the future, but I was trying to stick to my main point here. You live and learn, right?
EB
December 15, 2011
Hi, I stumbled across your discussion with Rev. Tony Breeden on his blog DefendingGenesis. First off, I’m an agnostic. I find atheists interesting because there’s no way to know for sure that there isn’t a God. Anyway, your side of the discussion was very reasonable, well thought out, and not inflammatory. You bring up various issues on specific views of Christianity (eg why would God put down dinosaur, geological evidence just to deceive us.. doesn’t seem very ethical, the Bible may have been a human account of miraculous things, but was distorted by humans, etc). You are correct about certain contradictions being impossible. If the bible said “Jesus could walk on water”, and then said “Jesus could not walk on water”, no matter how powerful God is, this cannot be true. You make a good case that a God created the universe, laid down it’s laws and things proceeded from there. What’s interesting is that you were very reasoned and compassionate to “Reverend” Tony (even saying that he is you’re brother), and yet he lashes out at you, implying that you’re an idiot, etc. In his other posts he talks about “evos”, lashing out at him and others.. Something that he is guilty of doing to you. You showed more civility than this supposed “Reverend”. Perhaps he should get a bit more training. He (whether he knows it or not) also is basically saying his view of Christianity is superior to yours. This is arrogance.. a sin. I’m going to post these issues on his blog. I don’t expect it to be there for long.
Take care,
EB
EB
December 20, 2011
BTW I feel I owe you an explanation of why I stuck my nose in this business. I see you, a nice intelligent guy, who is attempting to have a civil conversation with someone with another take (more literal interpretation) on your Religion. He gets nasty with you. You’re take on the religion is more logical and more tolerant. I just cant stand when nice people get bullied. I had to say something.
modsynth
December 20, 2011
Thanks for your comments, and I’m sorry that I’m slow to respond and generally slacking in blog maintenance these days. I don’t mind being attacked online, but it’s really nice to find that someone out there “gets” you, so I appreciate that you stopped by. Rev. Breeden and I have differing interpretations and tones, but there’s a lot of diversity and a big internet, so that’s to be expected. I’d like to see him be a little bit more gracious, and he’d like to see me renounce Darwin and donate to Answers in Genesis. I guess we’ll both just have to accept each other as we are ;-). I’m of the view that all knowledge is God’s knowledge. New developments aren’t a threat, they are accomplishments and opportunities to learn and fine tune our ideas. I believe that God does exists and He has reached out to us by sending His Son. Making complete sense of all it has mainly been left to human hands, so we debate theology and unavoidably become influenced by our own times and limited by our own understanding and abilities. That’s just the way it is, apparently. I’m taking part in the effort to understand Christ’s work without getting trapped into defending bronze-age cosmology or the limited scientific and medical knowledge of those who have gone before me. That can be a tough bridge to cross if you come from a conservative, evangelical background as I do. I’m here to help others who have noticed the same thing and to try to balance out some of the outspoken, anti-intellectual Christians that often seem to dominate Christian radio and pop up on the news. Thanks again. Stop by anytime.