- Aug 10, 2003
- 1,665
- 233
- 40
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I noticed the Science category on this site, and I was thinking about things like evolution and "creationism" and the bible, and then I remembered something I read awhile ago on the Skeptics' Annotated Bible site.
It occurred to me that some people take the bible word-for-word literally, and claim that there are no errors or mistakes, because it is the "divinely inspired word of God." Now, we'd all expect that God would be able to accurately identify and classify all of his creations, right? What follows is a taxonomic nightmare that I'm hoping some of the christian members of our audience can sort out.
For those of you playing at home, I'll ask you to open your bibles and follow along. My reference for this, as noted, is the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com), where I believe they use the King James Version. Let's turn to Leviticus, and take a look at 11:5-6, where coneys and hares are described as animals that "cheweth the cud." Last I checked, hares and coneys don't do that. In case you think that's a typo, check out Deuteronomy 14:7, where the error is repeated.
Now here's the one that really threw me. Leviticus 11:13,19 and Deuteronomy 14:11,18 both state that you're allowed to eat "clean" birds, then proceed to list the "unclean" birds that you shouldn't eat. The last item on this list is the bat. Now, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that bats are mammals, not birds. That's kind of a big difference, isn't it?
Leviticus goes on from there to discuss fowl that go on four legs, and "creeping things" (insects?) with four legs, whereas last I checked, those had two legs and six, respectively.
Now, taken in the context of a book of fables and morality stories, such scientific inaccuracies are not only forgivable but expected. Not a problem. However, when people try to base a scientific theory around a book with such glaring errors, and then try to teach said theory to children, this is where we need to take a step back and think about things.
Creationism, an attempt at explaining how the world came into being from a (somewhat) scientific perspective, has its roots in the bible, a book which tells us that rabbits are ruminants and bats are birds. Does anyone else see a problem here?
I'm interested in hearing people who adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible explain how they deal with this taxonomic hiccup. Is this part not meant to be taken literally? Or are bats really birds, and all along we've only been pretending that they have fur and teeth?
It occurred to me that some people take the bible word-for-word literally, and claim that there are no errors or mistakes, because it is the "divinely inspired word of God." Now, we'd all expect that God would be able to accurately identify and classify all of his creations, right? What follows is a taxonomic nightmare that I'm hoping some of the christian members of our audience can sort out.
For those of you playing at home, I'll ask you to open your bibles and follow along. My reference for this, as noted, is the Skeptics' Annotated Bible (www.skepticsannotatedbible.com), where I believe they use the King James Version. Let's turn to Leviticus, and take a look at 11:5-6, where coneys and hares are described as animals that "cheweth the cud." Last I checked, hares and coneys don't do that. In case you think that's a typo, check out Deuteronomy 14:7, where the error is repeated.
Now here's the one that really threw me. Leviticus 11:13,19 and Deuteronomy 14:11,18 both state that you're allowed to eat "clean" birds, then proceed to list the "unclean" birds that you shouldn't eat. The last item on this list is the bat. Now, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that bats are mammals, not birds. That's kind of a big difference, isn't it?
Leviticus goes on from there to discuss fowl that go on four legs, and "creeping things" (insects?) with four legs, whereas last I checked, those had two legs and six, respectively.
Now, taken in the context of a book of fables and morality stories, such scientific inaccuracies are not only forgivable but expected. Not a problem. However, when people try to base a scientific theory around a book with such glaring errors, and then try to teach said theory to children, this is where we need to take a step back and think about things.
Creationism, an attempt at explaining how the world came into being from a (somewhat) scientific perspective, has its roots in the bible, a book which tells us that rabbits are ruminants and bats are birds. Does anyone else see a problem here?
I'm interested in hearing people who adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible explain how they deal with this taxonomic hiccup. Is this part not meant to be taken literally? Or are bats really birds, and all along we've only been pretending that they have fur and teeth?
