Changes

Linnaean taxonomy was originally developed as a [[physicotheology | physicotheological]] system in which nature was viewed as another testament of [[God]] to be read much like the [[Bible]]. By seeking to document the patterns of concinnity in Creation, Linnaeus and his peers hoped to elucidate the mind of God<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/natursyn.html "Linnaeus' view of nature"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>. It was not originally meant to describe a system of biological descent, which Linnaeus, a devout Christian and creationist<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/bibeltro.html "Faith in the Bible and Creation"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>, would have considered shocking<ref>[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html "Carl Linnaeus"], biography</ref>. Linnaeus also applied his taxonomy to [[mineralogy]]<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/mineralog.html "Linnaeus as a minerologist"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>, but that usage has been superseded by [[chemistry | chemical]] classifications.

Linnaean taxonomy was originally developed as a [[physicotheology | physicotheological]] system in which nature was viewed as another testament of [[God]] to be read much like the [[Bible]]. By seeking to document the patterns of concinnity in Creation, Linnaeus and his peers hoped to elucidate the mind of God<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/natursyn.html "Linnaeus' view of nature"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>. It was not originally meant to describe a system of biological descent, which Linnaeus, a devout Christian and creationist<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/bibeltro.html "Faith in the Bible and Creation"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>, would have considered shocking<ref>[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html "Carl Linnaeus"], biography</ref>. Linnaeus also applied his taxonomy to [[mineralogy]]<ref>[http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/history/mineralog.html "Linnaeus as a minerologist"], Linn&eacute; On Line</ref>, but that usage has been superseded by [[chemistry | chemical]] classifications.

[[Evolution | Evolutionists]] hijacked the Linnaean system from the Christian founders of [[biology]] and tried to adapt it to the Darwinian world view of ever-transmogrifying species. However, since the Linnaean system describes a fixed creation with no way for members of one order or family to move to another order or family, this Neo-Linnaean Synthesis has always been problematic.

[[Evolution | Evolutionists]] hijacked the Linnaean system from the Christian founders of [[biology]] and tried to adapt it to the Darwinian world view of different species all sharing a common ancestor, a view which is contraindicated by the [[Bible]]. However, since the Linnaean system describes a fixed [[Creation]] with no way for members of one order or family to move to another order or family, attempts by [[Evolutionist]]s to introduce [[phylogeny]] (the alleged common ancestry of completely different animal species) were bound to be riddled with contradiction.

While the system is still in almost universal use for the naming and categorizing of creatures -- especially in the form of the [[binomial nomenclature]], where species are given a scientific, Latinate name comprised of a generic and specific descriptor (e.g. the common [[wombat]] is known as ''Vombatus ursinus'') -- it has largely been replaced as a framework for describing origins by creation science's  [[baraminology]] and the evolutionists' [[cladistics]].

While the Linnaean system is still in almost universal use for the naming and categorizing of creatures -- especially in the form of the [[binomial nomenclature]], where species are given a scientific, Latinate name comprised of a generic and specific descriptor (e.g. the common [[wombat]] is known as ''Vombatus ursinus'') -- it has largely been replaced as a framework for describing origins by creation science's  [[baraminology]] and, in the [[evolutionist]] theory, by the theory of cladistic [[phylogeny]].

==Later developments since Linnaeus==

==Later developments since Linnaeus==

Evolutionists claim that a weakness of Linnaeus' method was that he could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. However, this was arguably a better approach than making unsubstantiated claims that the different animals had the same ancestor. [[Evolutionist]]s accused Linnaeus of [[polyphyly]], which is the unwarranted inclusion in a taxon of species which did not descend from the same common ancestor. However, since no different species descended from the same common ancestor, it turns out that Linnaeus was right all along.

Evolutionists claim that a weakness of Linnaeus' method was that he could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. However, this was arguably a better approach than making unsubstantiated claims that the different animals had the same ancestor. [[Evolutionist]]s accused Linnaeus of [[polyphyly]], which is the unwarranted inclusion in a taxon of species which did not descend from the same common ancestor. However, since no different species descended from the same common ancestor, it turns out that Linnaeus was right all along.

Despite this, [[Evolutionist]]s continue to try and make Linnaeus' [[God]]-given taxonomical divisions conform to the factually unproven and morally dubious claim that different animals come from the same ancestor by haphazardly transplanting the animals from one taxon to another depending on the latest hypothesis about their ancestry, which leads to ambiguity over the nomenclature conventions for various species.

Despite this, [[Evolutionist]]s continue to try and make Linnaeus' [[God]]-given taxonomical divisions conform to the factually unproven and morally dubious claim that different animals come from the same ancestor by haphazardly transplanting the animals from one taxon to another depending on the latest hypothesis about their ancestry, which not only leads to ambiguity over the nomenclature conventions for various species, but is also bound to confuse the animals themselves.

Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely [[Plant]]ae, [[Animal]]ia and an additional group for [[minerals]]. In an unneccesary attempt to alter his theories, early [[Evolutionist]]s made up three new kingdoms and needlessly moved many organisms into them:[[Monera]], for [[prokaryote]]s (i.e., bacteria); [[Protist]]a, for protozoans and most algae; and [[fungus|Fungi]].  More recent [[Evolutionist]]s have invented still more categories, and transplanted more animals into them: [[Bacterium|Bacteria]] and [[Archaea]], which contain the prokaryotes, and [[Eukaryote|Eukaryota]]. These arrangements are constantly being remade and confusingly altered, and are not a clear improvement on Linnaeus' original system, which was still compatible with the Biblical concensus.

Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely [[Plant]]ae, [[Animal]]ia and an additional group for [[minerals]]. In an unneccesary attempt to alter his theories, early [[Evolutionist]]s made up three new kingdoms and needlessly moved many organisms in and out of them:[[Monera]], for [[prokaryote]]s (i.e., bacteria); [[Protist]]a, for protozoans and most algae; and [[fungus|Fungi]].  More recent [[Evolutionist]]s have invented still more categories, and transplanted more animals into them: [[Bacterium|Bacteria]] and [[Archaea]], which contain the prokaryotes, and [[Eukaryote|Eukaryota]]. These arrangements are constantly being remade and confusingly altered, and are not a clear improvement on Linnaeus' original system, which is still compatible with the Biblical concensus.

== References ==

== References ==