At the risk of being labelled a religious bigot again (heh), it has always struck me that people who criticise those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible always cite scientific evidence such as evolution, paleontology, carbon dating, etc.
I’m wondering if the fairly recent mapping of language families and the clear relatedness of languages has ever been used to counter the Biblical Tower of Babel account of language diversity.
I remember reading about ‘independent’ languages which haven’t yet been connected to larger groups eg Korean, Basque, Ainu, Japanese, the Finno-Ugric class, though
these may have since been allocated places. Are there any scholars who would cite these as evidence that the Babel story works? I can’t see how but I’m open to suggestions.
Have linguists ever bearded creationists or other fundamentalists in the language-family regard? It seems unlikely. Many people do not know the science of linguistics exists and are often uninformed about the nature of language. I saw a couple on TV who had adopted a Chinese orphan and their well-meaning friends were asking them if it would grow up speaking Chinese as well as English so I can’t see Larry King hauling in a linguist to shed light in a debate with literalist Christians, say. There must be other interesting accounts in other religions about the origins of language, too, I’d imagine.
To return to the ‘young earth’ idea, even if precise language-family mapping doesn’t go back beyond 6000 years (is this right?), completely credible if theoretical ‘proto’ parent languages surely do?
(Disclaimer: All this comes in the spirit of intellectual enquiry, but only within reason)