Tuesday, April 25, 2006
REMINDER: BSG Conference This Summer
In case you didn't know or forgot, the Baraminology Study Group is having a conference at Cedarville University. It's too late to send in research abstracts, but you can still sign up for the conference. But you need to do it by the end of April or else the price for the conference goes up.
There is a preliminary schedule out. I think they are going to have some sort of pre-conference listing of research abstracts in early May, but we'll have to see.
Anyway, just to point out, this is not like AiG conferences or other sort of conferences that are oriented towards teaching lay people about Creationism. It is geared towards biologists (though it does not exclude anyone) presenting research. To see the sorts of topics discussed, you can view the proceedings of previous conferences.
Also, in case you are wondering, even though the BSG has a YEC leadership, and is specifically geared towards being YEC, it does not exclude researchers from other perspectives.
Anyway, I'm hoping to meet and interview a number of the people there, hopefully the interviews can be put into interesting future posts here.
There is a preliminary schedule out. I think they are going to have some sort of pre-conference listing of research abstracts in early May, but we'll have to see.
Anyway, just to point out, this is not like AiG conferences or other sort of conferences that are oriented towards teaching lay people about Creationism. It is geared towards biologists (though it does not exclude anyone) presenting research. To see the sorts of topics discussed, you can view the proceedings of previous conferences.
Also, in case you are wondering, even though the BSG has a YEC leadership, and is specifically geared towards being YEC, it does not exclude researchers from other perspectives.
Anyway, I'm hoping to meet and interview a number of the people there, hopefully the interviews can be put into interesting future posts here.
Permanent Link posted by crevo @ 3:52 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Looking at the previous Proceedings, it is entirely obvious and clear that it is all about apologetics.
Not that this is news to anyone.
Not that this is news to anyone.
That is because you have trouble distinguishing between assumptions and conclusions. BSG takes Creation as an assumption. It does not (at least in general) argue for Creation above other hypotheses, but instead argues from Creation to other ideas. Apologetics is the attempt to arrive at Biblical doctrines as a _conclusion_. The BSG instead takes Biblical doctrines as the assumption.
Let's look at the latest BSG proceedings. A quick rundown of the research abstracts (I will tag each one with CAA - Creation as assumption, CAC - Creation as conclusion, or N - Neither -- Creation might have been a minor heuristic, an interesting side-note, or the research is based on a systems view of biology, but it is not necessarily of direct relation):
R1: How Creation affects one's view of biodiversity in an ethical framework (CAA).
R2: Discussing the function of TLRs in various species (N).
R3: Discussing adaptive mutations. This is a toss-up (CAA or CAC).
R4: Intuitive notions of kind (CAA)
R5: Polyploidy - diverisification discussion and beneficial or degredative discussion (CAA or N)
R6: Phylogenic relationship determination by ANOPA (CAA or N)
R7: God's care for the animals (CAA)
R8: Reduced post-flood longevity (CAA)
R9: Snake baraminology (CAA)
R10: Whale baraminology (CAA)
R11: Protein sequence similarities and phylogeny (difficult to tell from abstract -- either CAA or CAS)
R12: molecular variation (CAA or N)
R13: The nature of God as an organizing theme for biology teaching (CAA)
R14: Hybridization analysis (CAA or N)
R15: History of the baramin concept (N)
So, out of 15 research abstracts, only 2 of them could conceivably be viewed in any way as apologetic.
Post a Comment
Let's look at the latest BSG proceedings. A quick rundown of the research abstracts (I will tag each one with CAA - Creation as assumption, CAC - Creation as conclusion, or N - Neither -- Creation might have been a minor heuristic, an interesting side-note, or the research is based on a systems view of biology, but it is not necessarily of direct relation):
R1: How Creation affects one's view of biodiversity in an ethical framework (CAA).
R2: Discussing the function of TLRs in various species (N).
R3: Discussing adaptive mutations. This is a toss-up (CAA or CAC).
R4: Intuitive notions of kind (CAA)
R5: Polyploidy - diverisification discussion and beneficial or degredative discussion (CAA or N)
R6: Phylogenic relationship determination by ANOPA (CAA or N)
R7: God's care for the animals (CAA)
R8: Reduced post-flood longevity (CAA)
R9: Snake baraminology (CAA)
R10: Whale baraminology (CAA)
R11: Protein sequence similarities and phylogeny (difficult to tell from abstract -- either CAA or CAS)
R12: molecular variation (CAA or N)
R13: The nature of God as an organizing theme for biology teaching (CAA)
R14: Hybridization analysis (CAA or N)
R15: History of the baramin concept (N)
So, out of 15 research abstracts, only 2 of them could conceivably be viewed in any way as apologetic.
<< Home
