Evolution?

​

It’s no secret that the theory of evolution pervades scientific discussion.  This gives the false impression that the theory of evolution is scientific, or true.  It is neither; it is thoroughly subjective, irrational, and false.  But my purpose in saying this is not to launch into disproving the theory of evolution (there are untold numbers of others who have already effectively done that, which the internet will overwhelm you with if you ask it, and furthermore, I’ll do that easy task myself in a separate book I’ll write to add to the mountain of such resources).  My purpose in raising this issue here is to criticize a certain line of argument relevant to the subject of nutrition and health made by experts who are otherwise very sound in their theories of natural health, many of whom I link to on this website.

​

The theory, according to such experts, goes like this:  The healthy functioning of the human body is the product of evolution adapting to the environmental conditions existing along the pathway of the zillions of years of human development.  So if you examine how ancient humans lived and what they ate, that will explain what and why certain foods are essential for optimal human diet and health.  And the observation of ancient human dietary and lifestyle habits is not just confined to evidence in recorded history, but also to speculations of what conditions probably existed before recorded history, all the way back to “pre-humans.”  For example, it is theorized that since early humans probably, by necessity, found it more efficient to gather plant foods than hunt animals for food as their staple diet, the human body developed to require a higher proportion of plant foods than animal foods.  As a result, such theorists often refer to the sophisticated “design” of human biology as having resulted from evolution, which is an unwitting contradiction and impossibility, because no “design” can arise from the mindlessness of evolution.

 

One of the innumerable fundamental flaws in evolution is that it takes the observed phenomenon of micro-evolution and extrapolates and exaggerates it into macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution is a real process in which PRE-EXISTING genetic codes rise from recessive to dominant through natural selection, so that latent physical traits of an organism eventually come to fruition.  But macro-evolution is a flying leap from that, across a gap completely devoid of logic or evidence, to claim that all genetic advancements as a whole came into existence that way, utterly ignoring the fact that genetic codes which DO NOT ALREADY PRE-EXIST cannot be selected, nor can they come into existence by any natural means whatsoever.  Remember, genetic codes embedded in DNA are indeed CODES, they have a meaning EXTERNAL to their physical composition, a meaning which is INTERACTIVE with the EXTERNAL environment, just like words have purposeful meanings completely independent from their written or spoken code, the physical marks on paper that we call alphabetic letters or the physical audio vibrations we call speech.  As such, just as random marks on paper can never be meaningful words, functional genetic codes cannot come into existence by random assemblage of DNA (besides the fact that DNA never randomly assembles in the first place), they can only come into existence ARTIFICIALLY, from an EXTERNAL source which factors in EXTERNAL circumstances and purposes in a complex design to achieve a PREDETERMINED, meaningful goal.  In other words, genetic DESIGN only comes from a DESIGNER, namely God.  This is so eminently exclusively logical and self-evident as to render evolution nothing but a subjective superstition.  And real science agrees.  But I digress.

 

While certain observations and speculations stated by evolutionary theorists may be logical or true, and the conclusions may well be true with or without their assumed predicate logic, the fact remains that evolution is not the actual basis of such matters, evolution is inherently nothing but an arbitrary premise, a mere human mental abstraction with no actual truth behind it.  They can't deny the loud existence of intelligent design, but having arbitrarily disqualified God in advance, they speak about him by another name, claiming, for example: “evolution designed human physiology and diet to be such-and-such”.  But if you simply eliminate that irrational bias, and substitute the word “God” back in for “evolution” in such explanations, those explanations make perfect sense.  In other words, it is eminently more logical to say “God designed human physiology and diet to be such-and-such” than to attribute that process to evolution.

​

I said all that as context.  My resulting point is:  The attribution to evolution accomplishes NOTHING, it does not aid in investigating and understanding the complex design of human nature, health, and diet.  By contrast, attributing biology's eminently brilliant design to its Creator leads inexorably towards a greater tendency to EXPECT purposeful design behind what is observed, and then ultimately DISCOVER and UNDERSTAND that purpose.  In other words, acknowledging the Creator's intelligent design is MORE useful in aiding an understanding of nature than "evolutionism."  Evolutionary presupposition cannot do that anywhere nearly as productively.  So evolutionism is faulty on both levels, first, on its substance, it is utterly irrational and false, and second, on its utility, it adds NOTHING superior to "creationism" when it comes to understanding nature and its BRILLIANT DESIGN.

​

So whenever I recommend a source of good information, and that source relies on evolutionism, I am only recommending the source for its informational value, not its endorsement of the superstition of evolution.  Again, if you substitute the word “God” for each instance where a speaker attributes brilliant design to “evolution" or "Mother Nature," what would otherwise be childish fantasy is converted into meaningful common sense.

​

By the way, sorry for being so soft in my criticism of the theory of evolution; believe me, I’m holding back on the adjectives.  You’ll have to wait an indefinite amount of time for my book on the subject of evolution to come out to hear my unvarnished and compelling analysis.