The Rise and Fall of Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law
Evolutionists once commonly believed that all basic life forms which existed in our past multi-millions of years of evolution were rapidly repeated in the few months between conception and birth or hatching. Called the biogenetic law, this belief concluded that all embryos always rapidly pass through their evolutionary history, starting with the one cell stage, then in the case of humans developing into the fish stage, the reptile stage, the mammal stage, ape stage, and finally into a human-child stage. This theory, commonly explained as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” was cited as a major proof of evolution for over a century. This paper also reviews many of the biogenetic law claims commonly used in pre 1960’s textbooks including the gill slits, tail, and yolk sac. Recent discoveries in the field of embryology and a reevaluation of the evidence for the theory has shown it is without foundation and now largely has been discarded by embryologists.
Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms
For decades creationists have been using the word “kind,” “type,” or “group” for their envisioned categories of genetically unrelated organisms including all those formed by the Creator during Creation Week. Within each of these categories the various species, subspecies, and varieties were conceived to have diversified from common ancestral stock. However, until recent years there has not been a serious comprehensive methodology of classification focusing on characterizing each original category, which is separated by genetic gaps from all other categories. Now baraminology (with discontinuity systematics) has developed into a fruitful approach to classification within the creation model. Terminology and methodology have been developed, and the first scientific baraminology conference was held in the summer of 1999. An aggressive future program is envisaged.
The Philosophy of Sequence Stratigraphy
PART III—APPLICATION TO SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY
Much of the geologic work done by creationists in recent decades has consisted of reinterpretation of uniformitarian “data,” most of which results in an inevitable assimilation of elements of evolutionist stratigraphy. Sequence stratigraphy has the potential, according to some advocates, to allow creationists and evolutionists alike to break free of the uniformitarian straitjacket that has bound stratigraphy for more than a century. While some creationists advocate abandoning traditional terminology and methods in toto, others see this as an unjustified hindrance to research and to communication with establishment geologists. The philosophic background necessary to address this issue was established in Part I of this series. In Part II, it was applied to the methods of stratigraphy in general. In Part III, these principles are extended to sequence stratigraphy. The results of this application indicate that elements of sequence stratigraphy may have value for diluvialists, but must be applied prudently.