Baraminology has been a hotbed of creationist research for the last two decades. Dozens of studies have been published, most using a single methodology, called BDIST. However, there has yet to be a thorough evaluation of the methodology, though a few have raised concerns about its results. This paper reviews the body of work for the most popular statistical baraminology method and finds that it depends on numerous false assumptions and is prone to deliver false results. The method is characterized by evolutionary assumptions and a lack of critical evaluation of the secular literature. Creation science needs to pursue a more accurate method of determining baraminic relationship. Several ideas are suggested, as well as potential revisions to the dominant methodology that might help it return more accurate results.