Posted: Nov 19, 2012 12:34 am
by Shrunk
This is baraminology. Their standards are a bit different than what you may be used to in the usual stodgy, atheistic "scientific" paper. As an example, here is RationalWiki again on another of Lightner's research initiatives:

As part of the Ark Encounter project, the usual Answers in Genesis crowd ponders what animals to place on the Ark that represent the kinds suggested in the Bible, and hence they dicuss three baraminological systems: hybridization (animals that can product hybrids represent a kind); cognitum ("A cognitum is a group of organisms that are naturally grouped together through human cognitive senses."), and statistical baraminology. After explicitly rejecting sequence data (who knows that kinds have similar genetics, after all) and exploring the strengths and weakness of each method is performed, they conclude the cognitum approach is best; after all "One reason the cognitum is the preferred method after hybridization is that Adam would have recognized created kinds by sight." (That is, the method that will allow us to make up an answer because it feels right, without having to worry about scientific coherence.)


Now, let's reflect on that a bit. The claim being made here is that a creationist like Dr. Lightner can derive phylogenetic relationships based on simply looking at an organism, even in the form of a picture on the internet, and determining what "kind" it belongs to. This from a woman who can't even tell a plush toy from a real, live animal.