The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

terms we now use (Linnaeus himself classified humans as primates), and the later use of these terms in a Darwinian sense does not make them inappropriate for creationists today. Many creationists negatively react against taxonomic terms and concepts because they see them as evolutionary and incompatible with Scripture, but if we accurately understand the origins of these ideas, then we will see that such thinking can give us a deeper appreciation and understanding of God’s design patterns in the creation. 3. Folk Taxonomies, Scientific Taxonomy, and Scripture The origins of classification pre-date modern, scientific taxonomy. Throughout history, all human societies have not only named animals and plants, but also coined classificatory terms to group them into categories and hierarchies. Ethnobotanists and ethnozoologists examining folkbiology of tribal cultures in the last century were consistently surprised to find that people groups then perceived as primitive had extremely detailed knowledge of flora and fauna, as well as conceptual structures for classifying them (Berlin 1992). From a creationist perspective--considering that the first task of the first human was naming the animals in Eden--it is not surprising that prescientific cultures worldwide intensely observed animals and produced ordered systems of classification. Dubbed “folk taxonomies,” these ethnic means of categorizing organisms created some debate among researchers. Those from a relativist, utilitarian perspective on ethnobiology viewed folk taxonomies as artificial, culturally-isolated, human attempts to impose order on nature. However, completely unrelated cultures were found to produce folk taxonomies with strong parallels. Ethnobiologists such as Brent Berlin deduced that, although produced by humans acting in cultures, folk taxonomies are not purely relativistic, cultural constructs. The parallels between cultures exist precisely because nature is not culture. Folk taxonomy arises from a human attempt to classify something outside of, but interacting with, human culture. Furthermore, folk taxonomies are not strictly utilitarian, focusing merely on creatures that are important to humans. More types of plants and animals are described than have utility for humans, although utilitarian purposes may guide classification. Folk taxonomy, at its core, represents a basic human cognitive desire and innate drive to group and categorize a real natural order. Humans do not create this order; they simply try to describe it (Berlin, 1992). Folkbiology classifications, whether ancient or recent, are not scientific taxonomy in the modern sense. However, folkbiology classifications usually differ little from scientific taxonomy when distinguishing lower-order taxa. Ethnobiologists like Ernst Mayr and Jared Diamond discovered that a one-for-one correspondence often existed between modern species names and New Guinea tribes’ folk generics (their basic unit name for a “natural kind” of bird, like our English robin or mockingbird ) (Bulmer and Tyler 1968). Folk taxonomies have even revealed distinctions unknown to science. For instance, the Karam tribe in New Guinea used two names, kosoj and wyt, to refer to one species of frog, Hyla becki. Further research demonstrated that these were actually two, similar species, Hyla (now Litoria ) micromembrana and H. modica (Bulmer and Tyler 1968). In contrast to lower-order categories like species, higher-order folk taxonomic groups have less correspondence to scientific taxonomic categories. While modern, scientific taxonomists classify animals based on anatomy, genetics, and inferred ancestry, folk taxonomies tend to group animals into higher-order classes based on factors such as general appearance, environmental niche, behavior, and relation to humans. For instance, the Ndumba society of New Guinea includes bats and birds in the same category, kuri (Berlin, 1992, p. 167). Some tribes in New Guinea classify cassowaries (giant, flightless birds) using the same higher-order category as other birds. However, the Karam society of New Guinea uses the term yakt to encompass bats and all other birds, but does not include the kobtiy, or cassowary, in this yakt category for a variety of reasons, both anatomical and cultural (Bulmer 1967). The Hebrew names for animal groups are similarly an example of functional classification. English Bibles usually translate the Hebrew word ‘oph with the English bird . However, the Hebrew word translated to English as bat, ‘atalleph, is included in the category ‘oph (Leviticus 11:13-19). The Hebrew ‘oph is not equivalent to any of the English cultural or modern, scientific terms, for birds. Rather, ‘oph refers to a category of winged, flying creatures that would have included our English terms birds, bats, pterosaurs, and some flying insects (Lightner 2010). Although folk taxonomies are not strictly scientific, that does not mean that they are wrong or contrary to science. They were created for an entirely different purpose than scientific taxonomy. Folk taxonomies are part of each culture’s language, and are very useful for their purpose, the everyday communication and description of nature in a specific society and language. Even today, we will use non-taxonomic terms to describe functional, behavioral, or environmental roles (e.g., planktonic, herbivorous, or domesticated). Similarly, the divisions used to describe created animals in Genesis 1-2 do not divide precisely along our modern taxonomic categories (e.g., “beasts of the field” and “creeping things”). At least two attempts were made to map Hebrew words to scientific, taxonomic terms, and generate a technical, taxonomic system from Genesis (Berndt 2000; Klenck 2009). But these anachronistically and rather arbitrarily shoehorned already-dated Linnaean terms into Hebrew words without providing Scriptural evidence that the creation account was intended to provide a scientific taxonomy. A later study (Lightner, 2010) noted that the words used in Genesis for animal groups appeared to overlap in meaning, referring to general groups instead of strict divisions. Since Genesis does not provide a scientific taxonomy, it is appropriate to develop our own as long as we maintain the framework provided by Scripture (for instance, no common ancestry among higher-order taxa). Because the functional Hebrew folk taxonomy in Genesis and modern, scientific, creationist taxonomy are two different, independent systems, they do not conflict. It is as inappropriate to claim that the Hebrew categories in Genesis 1-2 prove scientific taxonomy to be wrong as it would be to claim that modern, scientific taxonomy proves Genesis 1-2 to be wrong. Likewise, it would be inappropriate to point to the creative order in Genesis as in any way conflicting with or governing creationist taxonomy. Some creationists have emphasized that birds were created on the fifth day of the creation week and dinosaurs on the sixth day (e.g., Sarfati 2000). By implication, Scripture forbids classifying birds and theropods as members of the same group. McLain et al. ◀ Feathered dinosaurs reconsidered ▶ 2018 ICC 506