| | Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid |
INTRODUCTION: In the course of debating a creationist, the defender of actual science and accurate history is often tempted to challenge the Biblical literalist with particular passages that, from the point of view of biology, geology, archaeology, etc. we know to be untrue. In the case of the arguments listed below, this is a mistake. The Bible at its best is an allegory: a collection of stories designed to teach moral and ethical lessons to people of faith. It is neither a science text nor a history book, and should not be treated as a source of those kinds of information, to be accepted without question. Picking at individual bits of misguided literalist claims presupposes that you accept that the Bible SHOULD be historically and scientifically accurate. You thereby grant the Bible the same status as the literalists do. (Thanks, EON) The Bible does contain much historical information which has been used by historians, archaeologists and others as a source of data to cross check, and be cross checked by, other sources of information. Some of the information has been confirmed, and some has been contradicted. When a Biblical literalist claims "All sediments which we now see on earth were formed by the single, Biblical, Noachian flood", we are fully justified in marshalling geological and paleontological data to show that this is false. What we are demonstating here is the falsity of the application of the literal interpretation of the Bible to the real world, NOT the inacuracy of the Bible as a science text. I maintain that we don't have to demonstrate that; the historical development of the Bible itself clearly shows that it isn't a science text. Incidentally, historians and others who want to mine nuggets of actual history from the Bible generally do so by reference to the Hebrew or Koine Greek texts, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, NOT the KJV. Knowing, however, that this won’t curb the arguments, there are some particularly bad arguments which we evolutionists make from time to time. My favorites follow.
1. “Well, Y OUR Bible says that rabbits chew their cud?” No, in fact, the Bible does not say that. It says that the “coney” chews its cud. First, there are no lagomorphs found in the Holy Lands, so it is unlikely the Bible would be referring to animals the writers didn’t know. This stems from a mistranslation of the word Shaphan as “coney”, which to the translators of the King James era, was a rabbit (for example, Sam Gamgee refers no “a nice brace of conies” in LOTR). What the original (previous?) writers were referring to was the hyrax (Hyrax syriacus) which does occur in the Holy Lands. The hyrax constantly works its jaws when it is at rest to sharpen, and keep worn down, the ever-growing incisors. This chewing action looks very much like ruminating. In this instance, the writer of the passage shows considerable awareness of the habits of the animal. Refer back to the Intro for the reason why, in the end, this doesn’t matter anyway. (Reference: Leviticus xi. 5; Wood, J. J. 1877 Bible Animals)
2. “YOUR Bible says that pi is equal to 3. How could they be so wrong! Obviously they were mistaken.” (This is one SlappyKinkade particularly dislikes) Wanting the Bible to have a value of 3.14159 etc for pi again commits the error of granting the Bible status as a science text which ought to be precisely accurate. However, if you were building the sorts of things that were built in those days, 3 is a pretty workable approximation of the value of pi, which would allow you, for example, to calculate quickly the number of bricks to use in building the foundation level of a well head or other round structure. Incidentally, the Bible does not refer to this measurement as a constant, but mentions a round object with a breadith of 10 cubits and a line of 30 cubits which could enclose it. Refer back to the Intro 1 for the reason why, in the end, this doesn’t matter anyway.
3. “YOUR Bible says bats are birds!!”
Animals were often classified in early times by some apparent morphological or habitus similarity. Thus, animals which fly and have wings were naturally included together. So even if bats WERE included in a list of birds, it is not an unreasonable grouping. The word used is the Hebrew atallêph which was translated as “bat”. However, that word is of uncertain origin, and may not refer to a bat at all. Again, refer back to paragraph 1 for the reason why, in the end, this doesn’t matter anyway.
4. Your Bible states that Whales and Birds were created before the land animals from whom they descend. (wrong). Here is a link to an explanation by our own PorchTwo about why this isn't an argument we evolutionists should be making. Kudos to Porch for admiting he's made the argument and shouldn't have. Had I the class Porch has, I'd have admitted making arguments 1-3 from time to time my own self. Our own TheSeventhBeggar has added to this page as well, with an essay and some examples of the difficulties with translation. Thanks to both for their help! Whales in the Bible
I’d like to point out that, if we hold the ancients to a modern standard of taxonomy, we would have to do the same for others, and for more recent mistakes as well. Thus, until very recently, rabbits (Lagomorpha) and rodents (Rodentia) were grouped together as closely related. Should we therefore discredit all of taxonomy prior to the recognition of the rabbits and rodents as separate orders? And, for the final time, refer back to paragraph 1 for the reason why, in the end, this doesn’t matter anyway.
Several discussions in the EvC room with SlappyKincade helped get me thinking about this problem. Please add other “Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Make”, or send them to me and I'll add them. WARNING: Do not interpret this page as a DEFENSE of the Bible. It is not. It is a cautionary note to evolutionists who sometimes get caught up in arguing from the same basis as do many of the CreationISTS we lambast. RichW9090 (last updated 07/16/03)
There are arguments those who defend the validity of evolution make, which while not dealing with the Bible, are nonetheless quite problematic, and tend to make one cringe. Listed below are the two I have most commonly seen: 1. Archaeopteryx is a reptile-bird mosaic because it has clawed hands Considering that manal claws are quite common in neornithines (crown clade Aves, or extant birds), this is not a particularly strong argument to make, however intuitively facile it may be. Even Hovind-level creationists are quick to jump on it, and the more clever creationists will cite ornithological data to refute you. If you wish to discuss the hands of Archaeopteryx it is better to point out how vastly different they are from those of all other birds except the Confuciusornithidae, and illustrate the apomorphies which the urvogel manus lacks, vis-a-vis other neornithines, to which the creationists so love to compare Archaeopteryx. 2. Archaeopteryx is the only bird with teeth Incorrect. Teeth were retained in a variety of archaic birds from the Cretaceous including the Enantiornithes, Ichthyornithiformes and Hesperornithiformes. It is valid to argue, however, that no living bird, or any other Neornithe (which creationists incessantly claim Archaeopteryx to be) has teeth. SynapticSynapsid (11/27/03) |
