• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

The Tree or the Forest?

Evaluating the Creationist "Basic Type" Model Scientifically

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

One of the central concepts in modern biology is the Tree of Life—a branching diagram that illustrates the evolutionary relationships among all organisms on Earth. This tree, grounded in genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence, depicts how all life shares common ancestry and has diverged through descent with modification over billions of years. In sharp contrast, many creationists reject this model and instead propose a forest of separate "basic types" or "created kinds," each independently created and evolving only within strict, predefined boundaries. This essay critically evaluates the scientific plausibility of the “basic type” model and contrasts it with the Tree of Life framework.

1. Understanding the Competing Models

The Scientific Tree of Life

The Tree of Life is more than a metaphor—it is a powerful framework that organizes biological diversity. First proposed by Darwin and greatly refined through molecular biology, the modern tree is based on:

• Homologous structures shared across taxa,
• Fossil sequences that show transitional forms,
• Genetic similarities, especially in conserved genes like rRNA,
• Nested hierarchies of traits in taxonomy.

It is not a guesswork diagram but a predictive and retrodictive model. Modern phylogenetics, powered by computational methods and genomics, allows scientists to construct detailed evolutionary trees supported by statistical analyses and robust datasets.

The Creationist “Basic Type” or “Baramin” Model

Young-Earth and some Old-Earth creationists reject common descent and propose that life was created in discrete “kinds” (Hebrew: baramin), each a separate starting point for limited variation. These kinds are believed to possess intrinsic boundaries that prevent them from evolving into new kinds. For instance, all felines might descend from a created “cat kind,” but no connection is acknowledged between cats and other carnivores or mammals.

In this view, the Tree of Life is a misleading fiction, and life is better represented by a “forest” of trees—each rooted in a separate, independently created kind, with only microevolution (variation within kinds) allowed.

2. Testing the Models: Predictions and Evidence

A. Genetic Continuity and Nested Hierarchies

The Tree of Life predicts that organisms will exhibit hierarchical genetic similarities reflecting descent. This is precisely what we observe:

• Shared genes exist across all life forms. For instance, the same 20 amino acids are used universally, and genetic code is nearly identical across all known species.
• Pseudogenes, such as the broken vitamin C gene in humans and other primates, show clear signatures of common ancestry.
• Nested groupings emerge naturally from genetic data, with more closely related species sharing more DNA.

The baramin model fails to explain these nested patterns. If species were created independently, we would expect a mosaic or non-hierarchical distribution of traits and genes. Instead, we see a tree-like pattern even in the most ancient molecular data.

B. Transitional Fossils and Morphological Gradients

The fossil record contains numerous examples of transitional forms:

• Tiktaalik, bridging fish and tetrapods.
• Archaeopteryx, showing both dinosaur and bird features.
• Synapsids, linking reptiles and mammals.
• Australopithecines, intermediate between apes and humans.

Creationists often claim that these are either fully one kind or another or merely "mosaics" of traits, but this misses the broader point: transitional fossils fit precisely where predicted by evolutionary models. The baramin framework provides no such predictions, nor can it explain the chronological ordering of forms in the fossil record.

C. Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) and Shared Errors

ERVs are viral sequences that have become permanently integrated into the host genome and passed on to offspring. Remarkably:

• Humans and chimpanzees share dozens of identical ERV insertions at the same locations in their genomes.
• These insertions serve no function and act as "molecular scars" of shared ancestry.

The statistical likelihood of such shared insertions happening independently is vanishingly small. The baramin model has no coherent explanation for this—suggestions like "common design" fail to address why broken and non-functional elements would be identically placed in unrelated kinds.

3. Ambiguities in the “Basic Type” Model

Creationists have not clearly defined what a “basic type” is or how it is determined. Criteria vary:

• Morphological similarity?
• Interbreeding potential?
• Genetic distance?
• Intuitive resemblance?

The lack of consistency has led to baraminology—an attempt to systematize kind classification—yet it has produced inconsistent and ad hoc results. For instance, baraminologists may group all cats as one kind but separate foxes and wolves, despite their genetic and reproductive similarities.

In contrast, the Tree of Life uses objective, quantifiable data and statistical methods (e.g., maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference) to determine relationships. Even when debates exist about details of specific branches, the overall tree-like pattern remains robust and supported by converging lines of evidence.

4. Misuse of Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

A common creationist fallback is to accept "microevolution" (small changes within kinds) but reject "macroevolution" (large changes across kinds). This distinction is artificial.

Macroevolution is simply microevolution extended over longer timescales and compounded.

There is no mechanism preventing the accumulation of small changes from eventually resulting in large-scale diversification.

Genetic speciation, chromosomal changes, and reproductive isolation have been observed in real time in some organisms.

Denying macroevolution is like acknowledging that erosion shapes pebbles but denying it can carve a canyon.

5. The Scientific Status of Creationist Models

Creationist models fail basic scientific criteria:

• They are not falsifiable—if any evidence can be explained as “God made it that way,” then no test can disprove the model.
• They lack predictive power—creationist models do not generate novel, testable predictions about genetics, fossils, or development.
• They ignore methodological naturalism, the foundational principle of science that explanations should be grounded in observable and testable processes.

Attempts to frame baraminology as scientific—such as in the Answers Research Journal—often avoid peer review and rely on internal theological coherence, not empirical scrutiny.

6. Why the Tree of Life Persists

The scientific consensus around the Tree of Life is not dogma; it is the result of overwhelming evidence from multiple, independent domains:

• Molecular biology
• Developmental genetics
• Comparative anatomy
• Paleontology
• Biogeography

Each field independently supports a tree-like pattern of life. The coherence of these data, from ribosomes to reptiles, offers an integrated and evolving picture of life's history that no creationist alternative has matched in explanatory depth or evidential support.

7. Common Descent or Common Design?

A central argument from creationists challenging the Tree of Life is the idea that similarity does not imply common ancestry but could just as well result from a common designer. According to this view, the reason different organisms share genetic or anatomical features is not because they evolved from a common ancestor, but because an intelligent creator reused effective designs across different “basic types,” much like an engineer might reuse parts in different machines.

While this may sound plausible on the surface, it fails under scientific scrutiny for several reasons:

A. Shared Errors and Inefficient Designs

The most damning challenge to the “common design” argument is the presence of shared non-functional or suboptimal features in related organisms. For example:

• Pseudogenes, or broken copies of functional genes, are often found at the same loci in related species. The GULO gene for synthesizing vitamin C is disabled in both humans and other primates, but not in most other mammals. If this were simply a design reuse, why would the same mistake be copied?
• ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) inserted in the same genomic locations across species imply historical infection and inheritance, not design choice.
• The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes loops around the aorta, traveling an unnecessary distance—a path that only makes sense through gradual anatomical change over time, not optimal engineering.

These features strongly suggest descent with modification rather than intentional replication of templates.

B. No Predictive Framework in “Common Design”

Common descent makes detailed, testable predictions:

• The closer the species, the more genetic similarities should be observed.
• Transitional fossils should occur in predictable stratigraphic layers.
• Developmental genes (like Hox genes) should show deep homology.

By contrast, “common design” does not generate predictions. It is a retrospective explanation, invoked after the fact. Anything can be attributed to “design” without criteria for what counts as necessary or efficient design. This makes the hypothesis scientifically vacuous—not wrong, but untestable.

C. Theological Overlap ≠ Scientific Explanation

The idea of “common design” often arises from theological commitments rather than empirical evidence. While belief in a designer is not inherently unscientific, introducing design as a causal explanation in biology short-circuits the scientific method, which relies on natural mechanisms and testable hypotheses. Unless design can be formulated as a measurable, falsifiable claim (e.g., specifying what would not be designed), it remains outside the scope of science.

8. The Human Exception: Creationism's Most Telling Anomaly

Among all the “basic types” that creationists claim were independently created, none is treated with more reverence or exception than Homo sapiens. Humans are not just another “kind” in the creationist framework—they are held as uniquely created, often outside the normal biological order, endowed with an immaterial soul and designed directly by divine intervention. This position, while foundational to many religious traditions, introduces a major inconsistency into the creationist model and stands in direct contradiction to the vast scientific evidence for human evolution.

A. The Evidence for Human Evolution Is Overwhelming

The claim that humans are biologically discontinuous from the rest of life is empirically false. Multiple, independent lines of evidence support the conclusion that humans evolved from earlier hominins within the primate lineage:

Genetic similarity: Humans and chimpanzees share approximately 98.8% of their DNA. We have the same number of genes, arranged in the same order, with countless shared mutations—including nonfunctional ones like pseudogenes and ERVs.

Chromosome fusion: Human chromosome 2 is a clear fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry. Chimpanzees and gorillas have two smaller chromosomes in place of our fused one, and the vestigial telomeres and duplicated centromeres in human chromosome 2 confirm the fusion event.

Fossil record: A rich array of transitional fossils—Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Denisovans—show a gradual anatomical and behavioral shift from ape-like to human-like forms.

Development and anatomy: Human embryos go through stages resembling other vertebrates and primates. Anatomical features like the coccyx (tailbone) and vestigial muscles further link us to our evolutionary relatives.

None of this is explainable under a model of separate creation unless one accepts a deceptive creator who plants misleading evidence of continuity.

B. Special Creation of Humans Is Theologically Motivated, Not Scientifically Inferred

The real reason humans are treated as a separate creation is not evidential—it is doctrinal. In Abrahamic traditions, humans are made “in the image of God,” and their moral and spiritual uniqueness must be preserved. This requires humans to be fundamentally different from animals, not just in degree, but in kind.

Creationists thus carve out an exception: while cats, dogs, and whales might share a basic design, humans cannot. They must be a stand-alone act of divine will. But this is not a scientific conclusion—it is a philosophical and theological stipulation projected onto biology.

Even Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, will entertain some “post-Flood” diversification among animals, but draws a hard line at Adam and Eve. Evolution might be allowed among canids, but not between apes and humans. This inconsistency reveals the ideological underpinnings of the model, not a coherent scientific framework.

C. The Psychological Need for Human Exceptionalism

The insistence on human exceptionalism serves a deep psychological and cultural need: the idea that we are special, chosen, and separate from the natural world. But this anthropocentric bias has no place in empirical science.

Darwin's great insight—and the one that caused the most outrage—was not just that species evolved, but that we are part of that process. Far from diminishing humanity, this realization situates us in the grand story of life. We are not the product of separate manufacture, but of deep time, selection pressures, and shared ancestry.

Evolution doesn't flatten human dignity—it grounds it in the continuity of life. It reminds us that our minds and cultures, languages and art, emerged from natural processes as remarkable emergent phenomena.

9. Ken Wilber and the Denial of Macroevolution: A Critique

Ken Wilber, despite his frequent claims to embrace evolution, rejects the core mechanism by which science explains it—neo-Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variation—when it comes to explaining macroevolution and speciation.[1][2] He often praises science's “lower right quadrant” insights but then dismisses evolutionary biology's account of how new species arise as reductionistic and insufficient. In doing so, Wilber aligns—ironically—with creationist talking points, even while claiming a post-metaphysical stance.

This section critically assesses Wilber's position by highlighting three fundamental misunderstandings: (1) the empirical grounding of speciation, (2) the false dichotomy between micro- and macroevolution, and (3) the reintroduction of metaphysical telos in place of causal explanation.

A. Speciation Happens: Evidence from Nature and Laboratory

Wilber has repeatedly claimed that “no amount of microevolution adds up to macroevolution” and that speciation has never been observed through Darwinian mechanisms. This is demonstrably false.

Observed speciation events have occurred in both natural and laboratory settings. Classic examples include:

• The apple maggot fly (Rhagoletis pomonella), which has begun diverging into two reproductively isolated populations after shifting from hawthorn to apple trees.
• Polyploidy in plants, a rapid speciation mechanism common in angiosperms, has been directly documented (e.g., Tragopogon species).
• Laboratory experiments with fruit flies and yeast populations have shown reproductive isolation evolving under artificial selection and environmental pressures.

These examples meet standard definitions of speciation: the emergence of reproductive barriers, genetic divergence, and ecological differentiation. That Wilber overlooks this body of empirical work suggests either a lack of engagement with the literature or an ideological resistance to naturalistic explanations.

B. The False Micro/Macro Distinction

Wilber claims that microevolution (variation within species) is valid but that macroevolution (large-scale changes across species or phyla) is “impossible” on a materialist basis. This mirrors a long-discredited creationist trope.

However, macroevolution is not a different process—it is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. The distinction is one of scale and emergent patterns, not mechanism:

• Speciation results from gradual changes, often through geographic isolation, genetic drift, selection, or mutation accumulation.
• Large morphological innovations (e.g., feathers, eyes, limbs) are increasingly understood through evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology), which explains how regulatory gene changes can produce substantial phenotypic shifts without invoking non-material causes.

Wilber ignores the gradualist and cumulative nature of evolutionary change and instead implies a metaphysical leap is needed—a position evolution has thoroughly outgrown.

C. The Insertion of Eros: Mystical Evolution Rebranded

At the heart of Wilber's rejection of naturalistic evolution is his spiritualized concept of Eros, which he describes as a “force of self-organization and emergent complexity” inherent in matter. While carefully avoiding the term “God,” he positions Eros as a kind of cosmic inclination toward greater depth and complexity—a metaphysical impulse that guides evolution beyond what blind processes can achieve.

But Eros is not a scientific hypothesis—it is a teleological placeholder, unfalsifiable and immune to empirical testing. Its invocation violates the principle of methodological naturalism, which underlies all modern science.

Wilber's claim that matter has an intrinsic urge to complexify does not explain the mechanisms by which complexity arises—it simply projects intentionality onto nature.

Evolutionary biologists do not deny that complexity can increase; they explain how it does so without needing foresight, goals, or inner urges.

By declaring that "neo-Darwinism can't explain speciation," Wilber commits a God-of-the-gaps fallacy, where gaps in current understanding are filled with metaphysical constructs rather than further empirical inquiry.

D. The Irony of “Post-Metaphysics”

Wilber insists his Integral Theory is “post-metaphysical,” yet his evolutionary model is steeped in metaphysical assumptions. Eros, telos, and the Great Chain of Being are all pre-modern metaphysical constructs that he attempts to modernize through spiritualized language.

Rather than working within the framework of empirical science, he critiques it from outside, suggesting that the scientific worldview is too “flat” to perceive the deeper drives of the Kosmos. But this critique amounts to special pleading—Wilber exempts his metaphysical model from the rigorous standards he demands of science.

If Wilber's alternative to materialist evolution is to posit that “Spirit does most of the heavy lifting,” he has left the realm of science and re-entered theological mythmaking—just with a more intellectual vocabulary.

Conclusion: A Forest Without Roots

The creationist model of many “little trees” or “basic types” amounts to a forest without roots. It denies the common ancestry of life not based on scientific evidence, but on theological precommitments. While creationist models may offer some intuitive appeal—especially when framed in familiar categories like "cats stay cats"—they collapse under scientific scrutiny.

In contrast, the Tree of Life is not merely a metaphor but a testable, predictive, and powerful framework that unites all known life in a single, branching pattern of descent. It is one of the crowning achievements of modern science, and its explanatory power dwarfs any alternative rooted in special creation.

Creationists may imagine a forest of isolated kinds, but the evidence shows these trees are connected beneath the soil—by shared genes, shared history, and a shared origin.

“Common design” may appear to offer an alternative to common descent, but it lacks the empirical grounding, predictive power, and explanatory coherence that science demands. Shared ancestry not only explains the similarities between organisms—it explains their imperfections, their genomic scars, and their gradual transitions over time. In contrast, the “common design” model remains a metaphysical placeholder—invoked to preserve doctrinal boundaries rather than uncover the actual history of life.

The creationist claim that humans are a separate creation is the last refuge of pre-Darwinian thinking, preserved not because the evidence supports it, but because it is too culturally loaded to let go. Yet this exception undercuts the internal logic of the creationist framework. If all kinds are fixed, but one kind—humanity—is categorically different, then the model is no longer about biology; it is about theology masquerading as science.

By contrast, evolutionary theory treats humans not as a disruption to the natural order but as a culmination of it. Our story, far from being exceptional in its origin, is exceptional in its consequences—for we are the only species that has uncovered its own evolutionary history, and can choose to understand it honestly. Ken Wilber's rejection of macroevolution by Darwinian mechanisms is not based on scientific shortcomings but on a metaphysical commitment to spiritual evolution. His denial of speciation under naturalism, his embrace of a teleological Eros, and his elevation of complexity as evidence of purpose all constitute non-scientific interpretations of biological phenomena.

In doing so, he places Integral Theory not as a bridge between science and spirituality, but as a veiled challenge to science itself—one that replaces testable explanation with poetic cosmology. The irony is that he claims to support evolution, yet denies the very processes that make it work.

True understanding of evolution does not require cosmic intention—only variation, selection, inheritance, and time. That's not flatland. That's the living, branching, evidence-based Tree of Life.

NOTES

[1] Ken Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, 1995, p. 10.

Apart from the specifics of natural selection (which most theorists now agree can account for microchanges in evolution but not macrochanges), there are two things that jumped out in the Darwinian worldview, one of which was not novel at all, and one of which was very novel. The first was the continuity of life; the second, speciation by natural selection.

[2] Ken Wilber, "Taking Evolution into Account", 2014, Fourth Turning Conference, video #4. www.integrallife.com (unavailable, even to members):

To get one species from another requires several mutations. It's well-known that the vast majority of mutations are lethal, so we would have to have several extremely unlikely mutations all occurring at once in the same animal. But even more unbelievable, the exact same number and type of mutations would have to occur in another animal of the opposite sex, in order for them to procreate and pass on the new mutations. And even more unbelievable yet, these two would have to find each other—what if one is in Siberia and the other in Mexico? The odds of all of those happening is basically zero.

See also: Frank Visser, "Debunking Ken Wilber's Misconceptions About Evolution and Mutation", www.integralworld.net, for a detailed debunk of this quote.