> A parrot is a bird but not all birds are parrots. I did not say that mice
> or rats(being mammals) would have been included in livestock/wild animals.
> The point I was making is that livestock and wild animals are generally
> mammals. Some people however might raise alligators for livestock. Other
> might raise chickens. If you notice, I also placed another mammal (insects)
> into the flying things category. In general, my point was that "they" had
> some sense of grouping. While ancient knowledge was limited by their
> experience and "technology", people of old were not less intelligent than we
> are, but perhaps smarter than we are. They don't seem to have the
> psychological hangups like over thinking that we do.
I wasn't clear in what I was critiquing. I agree that the Hebrew categories were reasonable ones for them to use. What I meant to criticize was the attempts by antievolutionists to read modern taxonomic categories into the Bible, e.g. by claiming that the purported no death before the fall clause applies only to mammals or that the purported separate creation of kinds means that species/genera/families cannot evolve but evolution within said category is OK. There's nothing wrong with categorizing animals by their style of locomotion if you only want a handy way to label everything.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Fri Apr 22 20:21:10 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 20:21:12 EDT