Response to “The Debate over Classification of Archaeopteryx as a Bird”

In a recent publication, Gabriela Haynes (2022) argued that Archaeopteryx should be considered a bird rather than a dinosaur, that birds and dinosaurs are obviously distinct, that statistical baraminology is too influenced by evolutionary thinking to be of use to creationists, and that scientists should only use Linnaean taxonomy in classifying organisms. We are glad to see other creationist scientists engaging with the beauty and complexity of God’s design, especially in the area of paleontology and the complex issues surrounding dinosaurs, birds, and feathers. Nonetheless, we recognize multiple issues with Dr. Haynes’ assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions: 1) there appears to be an unfamiliarity with cladistics and statistical baraminology, and specifically how these disciplines build and employ morphological datasets; 2) discussions of dinosaurs, birds, and feathers are, at times, imprecise and inconsistent with the current state of vertebrate anatomy and taxonomy; and 3) several biblical and philosophical conclusions extend beyond the claims of Scripture. Based on abundant evidence from numerous taxa, we recognize that feathers (including bristles, down, and pennaceous types) are found broadly across coelurosaurian theropods, that the anatomy of Archaeopteryx is strikingly similar to dromaeosaurid and troodontid theropod dinosaurs, and that the morphological datasets which tabulate the physical character states of these taxa are both accurate and robust. Employing these datasets through baraminological methods has allowed creation researchers to distinguish various kinds of dinosaurs and birds. Importantly, the presence of feathers on dinosaurs neither implies nor entails an evolutionary connection between these groups.