How could the digestive process of the lowly hare become the object of an important theological discussion?  The Bible says that the hare chews the cud, but a recent humanist book claims that the Bible is in error on this point.  Furthermore, this humanist book claims that since the Bible contains this error, it is not the Word of God and cannot be taken seriously on any other points either.  These are serious charges.  On the other hand, if the humanists be wrong on this point, perhaps it is they whom we should not take seriously on any other points either.

So let’s study the hare closely to see if the Bible is indeed wrong, or if it is these atheistic religious humanists who are wrong.
 

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you (Deut 14.7).

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you (Lev 11.6).

Evidently the belief in perfect Biblical accuracy is also a misconception.  For Leviticus 11:6 states that "the hare...chews the cud...", which is a demonstrably false statement.  (Rod L. Evans; Irwin M. Berent, Fundamentalism: Hazard and Heartbreaks, foreword by Steve Allen; introduction by Isaac Asimov (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1988), 86)

Lockley spent most of his life studying rabbits.  As a child he raised rabbits.  When he was twenty he obtained the lease to "240-acre Skokholm island, five miles off the entrance to Milforn Haven" (Ibid., 14).  His intention was to kill off the wild rabbit population on this island so that he could raise a more valuable strain of rabbit which had fur resembling that of the chinchillas.  He preformed many experiments to try to control the wild rabbit population on this island.  Says Lockley,

Indirectly my experience in studying rabbit control methods at Skokholm led to an invitation from the Nature Conservancy to investigate on their behalf the progress of myxomatosis, when it broke out in England in 1953; and subsequently from 1954 to 1959 I was able to carry out a life-history study of the rabbit on my small estate of Orielton in Pembrokeshire (Ibid., 16).

Chapter 10 of Lockley’s book is entitled "Reingestion."  He begins this chapter by quoting Leviticus chapter 11, as we did at the beginning of this article.  He then reports that rabbits do little underground except rest, sleep, and preen themselves.  However, there is one exception to this relative lack of activity while underground.

So long as we could watch the rabbits underground we had an ideal opportunity to study the phenomena of coprophagy or reingestion.

 The fact that rabbits...and hares ‘chew the cud’ was recorded in the Bible.  It is mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 11, as written under the title of this chapter.  Also (the Jewish law of clean and unclean meats) in Deuteronomy XIV....Later writers, even authorities on both wild and domestic rabbits, have seldom referred to this phenomenon.  In general, textbooks on rabbit physiology and management ignore the subject, not because of its lowly theme but because the authors apparently were ignorant of it.  Since its recent rediscovery it has been called ‘reingestion,’ a suitable term implying that it is a form of re-eating and redigestion of food.  (Ibid., 101-2)

could easily be overlooked by the casual observer.  A swift bending of the head during which the long ears almost touched the ground between the hind legs, then the rabbit’s head would come up and the jaws work for a few seconds as the pellet was swallowed and the tongue licked around inside the mouth afterwards.  In the rabbit there is a curious infolding of the lower lips over the space between the incisor and molar teeth which protects and hides the tongue.  The observer could not see the faeces because of the masking action and the closed mouth.  (Ibid., 103)

have demonstrated that each soft pellet is separate and by the time it reaches the rectum is enveloped in a strong membrane....These soft pellets pass down to the rectum in glossy clusters.  They are swallowed whole by the rabbit, that is, without breaking the enveloping membranes.  This in itself is a remarkable feat, as, although the rabbit (under observation in the open as well as in our artificial burrow) sometimes appears to chew this faecal ‘cud’ after collecting it from the anus, with movements of the jaws varying in time from one to over one hundred seconds, Griffiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole.  The movement of the jaws may therefore be solely a swallowing, followed by a cleaning action of the tongue, during which saliva is ingested along with the soft pellets and must aid in the digestive process.

The cud of a hare is just one example of proof that the so-called "science" of humanism is not actually science at all, but is mere philosophy—unproven opinions of men.  A true scientist reports only what he observes.  But no one has ever observed life come from dead matter, or a non-human give birth to a human.  No one has ever observed an animal of one kind give birth to an animal of a different kind.  These are the presuppositions of the theory of evolution.  The fact that humanists claim such unscientific theories to be scientific shows that they are unable to look at anything without bias.  The truth is they approach all aspects of life with the fanatical belief that "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes."  They have espoused such a silly idea because God claims to be absolute authority, and the Bible claims to be the absolute truth, and so they must reject both God and the Bible to keep from feeling guilty when they purposely break God’s laws which are recorded in the Bible.  Therefore, rejection of absolutes is inseperable from atheism.

The moment a person rejects absolutes that person declares war on God and Christianity, for if God is not absolute in holiness as the Bible of Christianity teaches, then there must be a better morality then God’s, in which case the Christian teaching that Christian morality is perfect would be a great hinderance to progress and therefore a great evil.  As Sir Julius Huxley, one of Humanism’s most famous champions, states in The Humanist Frame,

Humanism...will have nothing to do with Absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and absolute authority....any belief in supernatural creators, rulers, or influencers of natural or human process introduces an irreparable split into the universe, and prevents us from grasping its real unity. Any belief in Absolutes, whether the absolute validity of moral commandments, of authority of revelation, of inner certitude, or of divine inspiration, erects a formidable barrier against progress and the possibility of improvement, moral, rational, or religious.  (Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961], 14 and 40.)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to reason with a humanist.  One cannot have a logical discussion with a person who believes one cannot be absolutely sure about anything, and that nothing matters except winning the argument.  Since he is not absolutely sure that what he himself believes is true, he possesses no solid, unchanging values.  Thus it is impossible to find a mutually accepted foundation upon which to base logic so as to be able to persuade him of anything.  The moment he sees that his challenger’s argument is valid, he changes his belief so as to make his challengers efforts to communicate with him fruitless.
A humanist can justify any evil behavior—even murder, robbery, rape, or sodomy—with a giddy "nothing is absolutely wrong."  Having no clear concept of right and wrong, such a person constantly changes positions, and lies, sincerely believing that even lying is not absolutely wrong.  Such a person therefore cannot be of high integrity or character, for he can never be trusted to tell the truth or to keep his promises.

Consider how stupid and illogical this foundational ideological belief of humanism actually is.  If there are no absolutes, then it cannot be absolutely true that there are no absolutes.  And if it is not absolutely true that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely false that the there are no absolutes.  And if it be absolutely false that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely true that there are absolutes.

Obviously then when a person rejects absolutes he is intentionally closing his eyes to the light.  He can’t see because he won’t see.  This is why rejecting God and the Bible makes it impossible for a person to ever find truth.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov 1.7)

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  (Is 8.20)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily  (Col 2.8-9).

That humanism is merely a more genteel term for atheism is confirmed by the current president of the American Humanist Association, Dr. Isaac Asimov, who is also probably the most prolific writer in the whole world of science, having authored approximately three hundred books, covering every scientific field.  He says: "I am an atheist, out and out.  It took me a long time to say it.  I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have.  Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.  I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason.  Emotionally, I am an atheist.  I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time."

 One very significant admission appears in this statement of atheistic faith by Asimov.  Not only does he acknowledge that humanism is essentially the same as atheism, but also that atheism is nothing but an emotional belief.  In spite of the fact that he is one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world, having written books on just about every branch of science in existence, he recognizes that he has no "evidence to prove God doesn’t exist."  If Asimov has no evidence against God, we can be sure nobody does!  He believes in humanism/atheism simply because that is what he wants to believe!  The same is true for every other devotee of this man-centered religion.  Yet they commonly deride creationism because it requires faith!  One naturally thinks of Psalms 53.12: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

To learn how you can be rescued from such a terrible condition, read "Ye Must Be Born Again."

(C) Copyright 1994 by Louis A. Turk. All rights reserved. You may  reprint this article, provided you do not edit it in any way without the author's consent, and provided this paragraph is printed at the end of the article.  Other publication requires advance permission of the author.