Nevertheless you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only are cloven-footed: the camel, because it chews the cud but doesn't have a cloven-hoof, it is unclean to you. And the shafan, because it chews the cud but doesn't have a cloven-hoof, it is unclean to you. And the arneves, because it chews the cud but doesn't have a cloven-hoof, it is unclean to you. And the swine, because it has a cloven-hoof, but doesn't chew its cud, it is unclean unto you."The Torah is informing us that these are the only existing examples of animals with one sign without the other... How could any human, at the time the Torah was written, have known this?" That's the "proof" in a nutshell, as made by Aish.com in the section of an article on Parashat Shemini called Evidence Of Divinity Of Torah.- Leviticus 11
I have refrained until now from discussing this so-called proof of the divinity of the Torah as it has been discussed in depth by many others. The most definitive treatment of this zoological issue is, of the course, Rabbi Slifkin's (unfortunately out of print) book The Camel, the Hare, and the Hyrax. It is somewhat surprising that the "proof" is still being used by OrthoFundies, since its assertions have long been shown to be seriously flawed. Indeed, the attempt to use this as a proof is so untenable that it has been turned on its head to prove the exact opposite by those seeking to show the fallibility of the Torah! (R. Slifkin unfairly calls those critics "atheists".)
Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness in my ongoing posts on "Bad Proofs of Torah" - and in the spirit of Parashat Shemini - here is my terse summary of why this is a bogus argument:
To assert that the shafan and arneves are maaleh gerah, one must extend "chewing the cud" to animals that are not true ruminants. But then one must accept that many other animals not mentioned in the Torah also chew the cud. And to claim that these other animals are from the same "min" and are somehow included in the category of shafan and arneves is to make the idea of min so wide-ranging as to render the word meaningless.