The International Conference on Creationism

As many creationists will know in August 2013 the International Conference on Creationism is scheduled. This conference is according to their site acclaimed in creation world.

The ICCs have been recognized as the world’s premier gathering of creation researchers and have, since the first conference in 1986, served to greatly further the creation model of origins.

The last ICC has indeed given a spark to the creation debate when Todd Wood published his AGEing model for biological diversification. The second thing of notice is the presentation that John Sanford gave on ‘using numerical simulation to test the validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory.

Regular readers of my blog know that biological diversification is a theme on which I frequently blog (For example my post on network analysis and creationism or Evolutionary stasis and abruptness).

I am quite curious about what the coming ICC will bring for creation biology and related fields. Although I am not able to attend this conference, this will be the major event for creationism and my anticipation is high.

When I look at the confirmed speakers I see several presentations that interest me:

  1. A Creationist Perspective on the Origin of Pathogenic Vibrio Choleae and Vibrio Cholerae Toxin by Joe Francis and Todd Wood. 
  2. The Fossil Record of Angiosperm Families in Relation to Baraminology by Roger Sanders.
  3. Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Three Terrestrial Mammal Baramins (Equidae, Felidae, and Canidae) Implies an Accelerated Mutation Rate Near the Time of the Flood by Todd Wood
  4. The Fossil Record of Angiosperm Families in Relation to Baraminology by Roger Sanders
  5. Baraminological Analysis of Jurassic and Cretaceous Avialae by Paul Garner, Todd Wood and Marcus Ross
  6. Chromosome Number Changes Within Terrestrial Mammalian Families by Karen Bedinger
  7. The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature by Jerry Bergman and Jeffery Tomkins
  8. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet” by Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford.
  9. A Review of the Last Decade of Creation Biology Research on Natural History, 2003-2012 by Todd Wood.
  10. Whatever Happened to Darwin’s Tree of Life? by Paul Nelson
  11. New Research Evaluating Similarities Between Human and Chimpanzee DNA by Jeff Tomkins.

And there is one I am extremely interested in, because I really do have my reservations by statistical baraminology:

  1. Australopithecus Sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin by Todd Wood

Stay tuned for more updates about these subjects. In the next months, and definitively in August I will blog more about this conference and related topics.


2 thoughts on “The International Conference on Creationism

  1. iirc, Wood’s analysis of sediba in the past has placed it within Homo (or the human baramin), which was always an interesting conclusion given that most palaeoanthropologists don’t think it belongs there.

    That said, if he wants evidence of a link between Australopith and Homo a good place to start would be with stone tools. Homo is the only genus known to manufacture stone tools. Others may use stones, normally to crack open nuts, but none manufacture new tools from stones. Except Homo. And Australopith. Not only that, but the tools made by both genera are indistinguishable; both making the clearly identifiable Oldowan industry.

    Although we don’t have any evidence sediba was one of the tool using species, only Au, garhi.

  2. @Adam Benton: That is true. Wood did get many opposers to that idea in the creationist legion. It was an interesting conclusion, and I am curious to see what he has to tell about that.

    I am not an evolutionary anthropologist, and you are studying it, so is there any discussion currently about the status of sediba? You state that the general consensus is that palaeoantropologists in general think that it is not a homo species?

    Regarding the stones, Wood only used craniodental characters, and for all characters 60% of the character states should be known. Don’t know if that includes advanced stone-skills..

    What interests my is the use of statistical baraminology. In his abstract for the ICC he states:

    “These character sets, along with subsets of the original craniodental characters evaluated by Wood (2010) were used to calculate baraminic distance correlations (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). The inconclusive results raise questions about the value of using correlation and clustering methods to identify holobaramins.”

    That’s what interests me! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s