Science and the Bible: Rabbit Cud

The Hebrew word translated as 'hare' is arneveth. It is a gnawing animal of the Leporidae family, closely related to but larger than the rabbit. Unlike rabbits, hare young are usually not born in underground burrows; they are fully furred, active, and have open eyes at birth. The average length of a hare is about 2 ft (0.6 m), and it has a grayish or brownish color. It features a divided lip, a cocked tail, long ears, and elongated hind limbs and feet. Hares can reach speeds of up to 43 mph (70 km/h).

The Law of Moses prohibited hares as food, referring to them as chewers of the cud (Leviticus 11:4, 6; Deuteronomy 14:7). Although hares and rabbits lack a multichambered stomach and do not regurgitate food for rechewing—characteristics associated with ruminants—the Hebrew term for 'chewing' literally means 'bringing up.'

The modern scientific classification was not the basis for what the Israelites in Moses' day understood as 'cud chewing'. According to The Imperial Bible-Dictionary: "It is obvious that the hare does in repose chew over and over the food which it has taken at some time; and this action has always been popularly considered a chewing of the cud. Even our poet Cowper, a careful observer of natural phenomena, who has recorded his observations on the three hares which he domesticated, affirms that they 'chewed the cud all day till evening.'" - Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 700.

Francois Bourliere (The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p.41) notes, "The habit of 'refection,' or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow their night droppings without chewing, which in the morning can form up to half the total contents of the stomach. In wild rabbits, refection occurs twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare... It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine." - Mammals of the World by E.P. Walker (1964, Vol. II, p. 647) suggests, "This may be similar to 'chewing the cud' in ruminant mammals."​

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ugh. That is a terrible characterization of science. It is a gross mis-characterization. It is worse than uninformative. It is horribly misleading.

Back that up, please.

Sorry to inform you, but he took his ball and ran home.

 

[NoHolyCows]

The point is simple — and Richard Feynman put it better than anyone:

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”



That’s what real intellectual honesty looks like.

If a claim — whether scientific, historical, or theological — asserts something about the natural world, it must match observable reality.
If it doesn’t, it fails.
No amount of reinterpretation, linguistic games, or philosophical hedging changes that.

Leviticus 11:6 made a biological claim: that the hare “chews the cud.”
We know from direct observation that hares do not regurgitate and rechew their food like true ruminants do.
That’s not an opinion, it’s a biological fact.

If the claim fails reality’s test, it’s wrong.
And if it’s wrong, it is entirely fair — and necessary — to question whether it carries divine authority at all.

You can debate intent, you can discuss cultural understandings, but none of that changes the outcome:
The claim was tested and it failed.

That’s not being unfair. That’s just being honest.

And honesty about reality is the first step toward any real pursuit of truth.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Ugh. That is a terrible characterization of science. It is a gross mis-characterization. It is worse than uninformative. It is horribly misleading.

Back that up, please.

Enough information was above provided. See it if you are capable.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Leviticus 11:6 made a biological claim: that the hare “chews the cud.”

Sheesh. This again. Okay, I'll shine some more light (we'll say of a different wavelength), and we'll see if you will see.

In Faith vs. Fact, Jerry A. Coyne says that the word fact is defined as “something that has really occurred or is actually the case". Is it actually the case that Lev 11:6 "made a biological claim"?

To assert (in the manner done) that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim is to insist that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim. It is a fact that the person claiming that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim has not established as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim.

And what is "a biological claim"?

As presented, that phrase is ambiguous. Is "biological" in that phrase intended to refer to biology as a science? Is it supposed to refer to something timeless, something sort of characteristically Platonic?

Coyne also had a few other things to say which are relevant here. He says that he uses “the words 'truth' and 'fact' interchangeably”, and that is colloquially common. And he adds this about truth: “widespread agreement by scientists about what is true does not guarantee that the truth will never change. Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional". From that it follows that it could have been a fact at the time Lev 11:6 was first communicated that Lev 11:6 was fact/truth at that time.

Alternatively, "biological" could be meant as something other than a reference to biology as a scientific matter. In that case, we are right back to the having failed to establish as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim (as has already been discussed). That means that there are multiple various possibilities still viable, and, yet, there is that unjustified, unsupported, and frankly ignorant obstinacy which insists that there can be only one way of understanding Lev 11:6.

There is much more that could be said, but if you do not see how the above remarks are sufficient to establish the deficiencies of your position, then there is no need whatsoever to see if you will see, because it will have been established without any possible exception that you and like-thinking cohorts here or elsewhere are - for whatever reason - simply incapable of analytical philosophical thinking of even the poorest possible quality.

That also means that you will never be capable of insightful scientific thinking. But that doesn't mean you cannot continue to make believe on the internet that you are capable of such thinking.

 

[pood]

Leviticus 11:6 made a biological claim: that the hare “chews the cud.”

Sheesh. This again. Okay, I'll shine some more light (we'll say of a different wavelength), and we'll see if you will see.

In Faith vs. Fact, Jerry A. Coyne says that the word fact is defined as “something that has really occurred or is actually the case". Is it actually the case that Lev 11:6 "made a biological claim"?

To assert (in the manner done) that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim is to insist that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim. It is a fact that the person claiming that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim has not established as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim.

And what is "a biological claim"?

As presented, that phrase is ambiguous. Is "biological" in that phrase intended to refer to biology as a science? Is it supposed to refer to something timeless, something sort of characteristically Platonic?

Coyne also had a few other things to say which are relevant here. He says that he uses “the words 'truth' and 'fact' interchangeably”, and that is colloquially common. And he adds this about truth: “widespread agreement by scientists about what is true does not guarantee that the truth will never change. Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional". From that it follows that it could have been a fact at the time Lev 11:6 was first communicated that Lev 11:6 was fact/truth at that time.

Alternatively, "biological" could be meant as something other than a reference to biology as a scientific matter. In that case, we are right back to the having failed to establish as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim (as has already been discussed). That means that there are multiple various possibilities still viable, and, yet, there is that unjustified, unsupported, and frankly ignorant obstinacy which insists that there can be only one way of understanding Lev 11:6.

There is much more that could be said, but if you do not see how the above remarks are sufficient to establish the deficiencies of your position, then there is no need whatsoever to see if you will see, because it will have been established without any possible exception that you and like-thinking cohorts here or elsewhere are - for whatever reason - simply incapable of analytical philosophical thinking of even the poorest possible quality.

That also means that you will never be capable of insightful scientific thinking. But that doesn't mean you cannot continue to make believe on the internet that you are capable of such thinking.

As noted earlier, I think the relevant issue here is not whether the writers of the bible intended the claim as a biological one, or whether they got something right or wrong about hares or anything else. The key point is that some people claim that the bible is the infallible, divinely inspired word of god. Biblical literalists maintain that everything in the bible is truth/fact, and is not subject to change. This is quite unlike the provisional nature of scientific truth/fact outlined by Coyne.

But the claim about hares is false. Therefore, that is a defeater for the claims of biblical literalists.

However, DLH, who started this thread, has stated on a number of occasions his conviction that the bible is the fallible human interpretation of the infallible word of God, and therefore contains mistakes. As a matter of fact, he must think it contains a lot of mistakes, because the positions he has staked out are precisely those of a Jehovah’s Witness, even though he has denied being a JW. On their account, Jesus, for example, is really the Archangel Michael, and Satan was evicted from heaven as recently as 1914. There is no hell, and in the end only precisely 144,000 people will go to heaven.

What metric DLH or the JW’s use to sort out these alleged “truth/facts” from non-truth/facts is beyond me. At least Coyne has a metric.

But the puzzling question remains: Why, precisely, did DLH stat this thread, if he is not a biblical literalist, and why, precisely, did he put in THIS particular forum, which is called Religion VS. science?

Under those circumstances, it is reasonable to surmise that DLH thinks the claim about hares is literally true, and that he does not care what science says and is bored by it. He clearly stated in one of his evolution threads that he does not care what science says and is bored by it.

In that case, he himself has invited a scientific/biological critique of the biblical claim, which is exactly what NHC and other have given him. If he had some other intent, let him state it.

So the ball is in his court, to establish what his intention was in starting this thread, and putting it in THIS particular forum.

Finally I’d suggest that a more useful discussion about how religious claims may differ from scientific ones without necessarily bringing about a contradiction between the two would make reference to Wittgenstein among others.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Finally I’d suggest that a more useful discussion about how religious claims may differ from scientific ones without necessarily bringing about a contradiction between the two would make reference to Wittgenstein among others.

But then we'd have to talk nonsense!!!!! And about varieties of nonsense! Not to mention the importance of nonsense.

 

[steve_bank]

Leviticus 11:6 made a biological claim: that the hare “chews the cud.”

Sheesh. This again. Okay, I'll shine some more light (we'll say of a different wavelength), and we'll see if you will see.

In Faith vs. Fact, Jerry A. Coyne says that the word fact is defined as “something that has really occurred or is actually the case". Is it actually the case that Lev 11:6 "made a biological claim"?

To assert (in the manner done) that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim is to insist that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim. It is a fact that the person claiming that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim has not established as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim.

And what is "a biological claim"?

As presented, that phrase is ambiguous. Is "biological" in that phrase intended to refer to biology as a science? Is it supposed to refer to something timeless, something sort of characteristically Platonic?

Coyne also had a few other things to say which are relevant here. He says that he uses “the words 'truth' and 'fact' interchangeably”, and that is colloquially common. And he adds this about truth: “widespread agreement by scientists about what is true does not guarantee that the truth will never change. Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional". From that it follows that it could have been a fact at the time Lev 11:6 was first communicated that Lev 11:6 was fact/truth at that time.

Alternatively, "biological" could be meant as something other than a reference to biology as a scientific matter. In that case, we are right back to the having failed to establish as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim (as has already been discussed). That means that there are multiple various possibilities still viable, and, yet, there is that unjustified, unsupported, and frankly ignorant obstinacy which insists that there can be only one way of understanding Lev 11:6.

There is much more that could be said, but if you do not see how the above remarks are sufficient to establish the deficiencies of your position, then there is no need whatsoever to see if you will see, because it will have been established without any possible exception that you and like-thinking cohorts here or elsewhere are - for whatever reason - simply incapable of analytical philosophical thinking of even the poorest possible quality.

That also means that you will never be capable of insightful scientific thinking. But that doesn't mean you cannot continue to make believe on the internet that you are capable of such thinking.

Sheesh, tire of the same repetitious philosophical handwaving and misdirection again.

'Philosophy bakes no bread'

What do you know about 'scientific insight'? Where did you read that? On what experience do you base your views on since, what you read somewhere?

I was immerse in science and applied it for over 30 years, every day at work.


Is the Michel S Perl tag related to

To Train Up a Child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Michael Pearl (born 1945)[4] is an American independent Baptist preacher and author. After graduating from Mid-South Bible College, he worked with Union Mission in Memphis for 25 years.[5] His 2006 graphic novel Good and Evil[6] won the Independent Publishers' IPPY Award Bronze Medal in the Graphic Novel/Drama category in 2009[7] and was a 2009 ForeWord Book Award finalist.[8] His other publications include No Greater Joy Magazine,[9] Training Children to be Strong in Spirit,[10] and Created to Be His Help Meet.[11]

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

@steve_bank , what is there to say other than you are a funny guy?

 

[pood]

'Philosophy bakes no bread'

Philosophy bakes plenty of bread, as I’ve discussed on a number of occasions. The entire scientific enterprise is shot through with metaphysical assumptions, including the absolutely vital one of statistical independence, which the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has called into question.

Also, I imagine plenty of people are named Michael Pearl.

 

[steve_bank]

@steve_bank , what is there to say other than you are a funny guy?

More misdirection and pivoting away from the questions. I spent 30 years in the competitive corporate technology world, your methods and arguments are somewhat simplistic and routine.

Academic philosophy, logic, and reasoning has no meaning unless you test it out in the real word where there are consequences.

Your responses are formulaic and tend to reduce to condescension and personal attack, without actually taking and defending a position. You posts point to a rigid inflexible thinking unable to adpat and flow freely. No spontaneity, rigid structured responses, Seen it before out in the world.

I certainly saw that in the corporate world. In a meeting somebody who sits back and speaks critically without really understanding what is going on, and never taking a position. Some managed to make a career out of it. fining competence by attacking otters.

Academic philosophy and logic are not the real world. Taking a class in ethics has no meaning until you face ethical situations with consequences.

I asked you to say what your beliefs are and you refused you got cu8te and evasive. Stating clearly what you believe would man having to defend it.

So in short, you are nothing new tome based on your posts.

 

[NoHolyCows]

In Faith vs. Fact, Jerry A. Coyne says that the word fact is defined as “something that has really occurred or is actually the case". Is it actually the case that Lev 11:6 "made a biological claim"?

Yes, it is actually the case. Leviticus 11:6 says directly that the hare “chews the cud” but “does not have a divided hoof.” That is a description of an animal’s physical, biological behavior presented as the reason for a dietary law. It’s not framed as symbolism, poetry, myth, or moral allegory. It is a statement about animal anatomy and digestion, and thus constitutes a biological claim, whether or not the ancients understood the scientific method.

To assert (in the manner done) that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim is to insist that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim. It is a fact that the person claiming that Lev 11:6 is a biological claim has not established as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim

Intent is not the issue here. Content is. Regardless of whether Moses (or anyone else) intended to teach biology, the verse makes an assertion about an observable, biological behavior—namely cud chewing. Whether intended as instruction or casual observation, the truth or falsity of a biological statement is judged against biological reality, not against subjective intention. You cannot shield a false factual claim by speculating that maybe it wasn’t “meant that way.”

And what is "a biological claim"?

As presented, that phrase is ambiguous. Is "biological" in that phrase intended to refer to biology as a science? Is it supposed to refer to something timeless, something sort of characteristically Platonic?

There is no ambiguity. A biological claim refers to a description of an animal’s physical structure, function, or behavior. Whether ancient or modern, saying “this animal chews the cud” asserts something testable about the animal’s digestion. That has nothing to do with Plato or timeless abstractions—it has to do with physical facts. Either hares regurgitate and rechew food or they don’t. And they don’t.

Coyne also had a few other things to say which are relevant here. He says that he uses “the words 'truth' and 'fact' interchangeably”, and that is colloquially common. And he adds this about truth: “widespread agreement by scientists about what is true does not guarantee that the truth will never change. Scientific truth is never absolute, but provisional". From that it follows that it could have been a fact at the time Lev 11:6 was first communicated that Lev 11:6 was fact/truth at that time.

You are misapplying Coyne’s point. “Scientific truth is provisional” means we are always open to better models if new evidence emerges—not that a false statement becomes true based on ancient misunderstanding. It was never true that hares chewed cud. It was only believed to be true by people who observed superficially without understanding the underlying biology. Provisional truth is about updating models, not sanctifying ancient errors.

Alternatively, "biological" could be meant as something other than a reference to biology as a scientific matter. In that case, we are right back to the having failed to establish as fact that the verse could only have been intended as a biological claim (as has already been discussed).

Again, you are mistaking the nature of factual claims. Regardless of the intent, a statement about animal behavior is a biological statement. If someone says, “bats are birds,” the biological inaccuracy remains whether they meant it scientifically, symbolically, or casually. Statements about physical characteristics are judged against reality. Not intention. Not poetry. Not wishful thinking.

That means that there are multiple various possibilities still viable, and, yet, there is that unjustified, unsupported, and frankly ignorant obstinacy which insists that there can be only one way of understanding Lev 11:6.

No, there aren’t “multiple viable possibilities.” There is what was stated—“the hare chews the cud”—and there is the observable biological reality that it doesn’t. It’s not “obstinate” to point out the mismatch between a claim and reality. It’s basic intellectual honesty. You don’t get to create endless interpretive possibilities to avoid admitting a plain and straightforward error.

There is much more that could be said, but if you do not see how the above remarks are sufficient to establish the deficiencies of your position, then there is no need whatsoever to see if you will see, because it will have been established without any possible exception that you and like-thinking cohorts here or elsewhere are - for whatever reason - simply incapable of analytical philosophical thinking of even the poorest possible quality.

Calling people incapable of thought doesn’t erase the problem: Leviticus 11:6 makes a claim about physical reality that is false. You have attempted layer after layer of rhetorical deflection, but none of it changes the one fact at the root: hares do not chew cud. No amount of philosophical hand-waving or accusations about others’ capabilities will change observable biology.

That also means that you will never be capable of insightful scientific thinking. But that doesn't mean you cannot continue to make believe on the internet that you are capable of such thinking.

Projection won’t save you. Insulting others for pointing out a factual error doesn’t erase the factual error. It only shows that you have no substantive reply left—and that you are trying to drown clarity under a flood of words. But facts are stubborn. The Bible said hares chew cud. Hares don’t. That’s reality. You can either face it, or continue inventing philosophical mazes to avoid it. But the outcome doesn’t change.

NHC

 

[ideologyhunter]

Ugh. That is a terrible characterization of science. It is a gross mis-characterization. It is worse than uninformative. It is horribly misleading.

Back that up, please.

Enough information was above provided. See it if you are capable.

Hmmm. I thought there just might be a pearl here, but it was an oyster fart.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I asked you to say what your beliefs are and you refused

I realize that you think veritably exclusively in terms of categories. That doesn't mean you're not a funny guy. And I mean that in a good way.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Intent is not the issue here. Content is.

Was it with a whoosh or a whizzing that what I wrote went over your head? Content necessarily independent of intent. No interpretation here whatsoever. And none needed. That's funny. It is funny how you unwittingly and inadvertently confirm my point(s), but steve_bank remains funnier in a good way.

Woe to pood. His recommended perspective for this thread is accepted.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Hmmm. I thought there just might be a pearl here, but it was an oyster fart.

Huh. For some reason I expected a more sophisticated sort of humor, insult, whatever in any response from you. My mistake. It's not your fault.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Was it with a whoosh or a whizzing that what I wrote went over your head? Content necessarily independent of intent. No interpretation here whatsoever. And none needed. That's funny. It is funny how you unwittingly and inadvertently confirm my point(s)

No, it didn’t go over my head—you just keep pretending that identifying what a text says requires mind-reading about what the writer intended. It doesn’t. If a text states a biological fact, that fact can be judged true or false independent of the writer’s intentions. When Leviticus says “the hare chews the cud,” the issue isn’t what Moses intended people to believe—it’s whether the factual content matches reality. It doesn’t. That’s not interpretation. That’s a simple comparison between claim and observable fact. You’re trying to smuggle subjective intent into a factual error to excuse it, but no amount of rhetorical games will change the basic truth: the statement is wrong. Intent doesn’t save it. Philosophy doesn’t save it. You can either deal with that, or keep dodging it. But the fact remains standing.

NHC

 

[ideologyhunter]

<delete>

 

[pood]

Religion vs. Science (and Wittgenstein)

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hmmm. I thought there just might be a pearl here, but it was an oyster fart.

Huh. For some reason I expected a more sophisticated sort of humor, insult, whatever in any response from you. My mistake. It's not your fault.

Now that is a terrible characterization of my post. It is a gross mis-characterization. It is worse than uninformative. It is horribly misleading. It is, prima facie, ostreae crepitu -- an oyster fart.

 

[steve_bank]

I asked you to say what your beliefs are and you refused

I realize that you think veritably exclusively in terms of categories. That doesn't mean you're not a funny guy. And I mean that in a good way.

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

You appear to be outclassedby yor oponents on these topics dispite your protestations.

You can either continue as you are or you can grow, learn, and up your game. Unless of course you assure yourself that youknow all there is to know already.

In say 10 lines or less can you elaborate what you mean by scientific insight and give an example?.

No quotes, in your own words.

Do that and I may start to change my opinion of you.

Otherwise

noun: dilettante; plural noun: dilettantes; plural noun: dilettanti

a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.
"a wealthy literary dilettante"