Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Evolution versus Gluten sensitivity, Part 2

Well, I asked for it.
In my previous column I asked evolutionists to explain why the human gastrointestinal system hasn’t kept up with the rapid changes in our human diet. I am shocked – shocked I tell you! – to discover that evolutionists disagreed with my conclusions.

Well, duh. Of course I don’t believe that gluten sensitivity, alone, disproves evolution. That was not my point. My point was that evolutionists claim that species advance by a process called Survival of the fittest. Yet, over the past 100 or so years, it has become clear that humans – and other species – are getting less fit, not more. Species from coral to bees, bats to frogs, fish to rainforests, are dying off at alarming rates.
Humans are succumbing at a prodigious rate to cancerobesity, diabetes, and heart disease. This is a relatively new phenomenon. Our great-grandparents ate a diet high in fat, cholesterol, and yes, gluten, and survived quite well on it. 
1 person out of 1,160 died of cancer in 1921.  Their biggest worries were diseases like smallpox and diphtheria. Today, despite all the advances of modern medicine,1 out of 550 people die of cancer. If the evolutionary model were correct, if homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years, wouldn’t we by now have evolved a digestive system that could handle anything we can throw at it? Or, at the very least, wouldn’t we have evolved enough sense to know what not to eat?
If on the other hand God created humans, then we would be designed to have certain nutritional needs, and failure to meet those needs would result in - well, exactly what we are now seeing. A car designed to run on 93 octane gasoline runs poorly on 89 octane, will barely run on alcohol, and won’t run at all on diesel. In fact, by that comparison, a reasonable person would be forced to conclude that either:
  1. God did a great job of over-engineering the human body for it to work at all, given the lousy diet most of us eat or,
  2. Car designers are doing a lousy job in not giving us cars that can run on Wonder Bread.
I couldn’t help noticing that the evolutionist responders to my column left untouched one glaring point: I accused science of immorally developing a wheat protein that satisfied certain financial criteria while ignoring health hazards; and the evolutionists were completely silent on that subject.
Why? Couldn’t they use that self-same Survival of the fittest argument? Couldn’t an evolutionist reason that an individual’s first priority is to feed himself and his family, and that the scientists who put profits for themselves ahead of the health of others by creating an unhealthy wheat were simply doing what evolution demanded?
They could have argued that, but they didn’t. Evolutionists don’t make that sort of argument for a simple reason: they can’t explain morals.
Humans have an innate sense of justice; that’s why movies where the bad guy wins do poorly at the box office. That’s why most of us were aghast at the decision to free O.J. And that’s why we are outraged at the thought of some corporation putting its profits ahead of its customers’ health. Where did that moral sense come from?
According to evolutionists humans are merely highly evolved animals; we descended from some (missing) creatures with names like Australopithecus and Homo Erectus. Previous to and somehow out-surviving these mythical creatures, they claim, were chimpanzees.
So, let’s compare morals: According to the book The story of V: a natural history of female sexuality by Catherine Blackledge, a female chimpanzee will mate with up to 50 different males in one day. They copulate without embarrassment in full view of other chimpanzees. They have no concept of marriage.
Eve, on the other hand, is described in the Bible not merely as Adam’s 'mate' but as his “wife.” 
“Then Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she became pregnant. She bore a son and said, By the Lord's help I have gotten a son. So she named him Cain.” (Genesis 4:1)
Naked Adam and Eve both felt guilt after stealing fruit from a tree God had placed out of bounds. Their guilt manifested itself in embarrassment: 
“The eyes of them both were opened, and they came to know that they were naked, and they sewed fig-leaves, and made to themselves girdles. And they heard the sound of Jehovah God walking up and down in the garden at the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the face of Jehovah God in the midst of the trees of the garden.” (Genesis 3:7, 8) 
Chimpanzees don't cover themselves out of guilt.
Chimpanzees will also ‘murder’ other chimps without compunction. No one calls the police, the killers are not banished from the tribe; there are no consequences at all.
Yet the account of the earliest murder in human history, that of Abel at the hand of Cain, also records feelings of guilt. Genesis 4:10 has God saying, 
“What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the earth.” And verse 14 tells of Cain’s fear of reprisals from his brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces: “I will be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth. It will happen that whoever finds me will kill me."
Which of those missing species came up with the idea of monogamous marriage? Was it Australopithecus that decided that nudity combined with guilt equaled embarrassment? Did Homo Erectus decide that murder was unjust and required action from the rest of the tribe? Did any evolutionary predecessor to humans have such concepts?
One other noteworthy comment replying to that previous article: 
“Our modern healthcare system ensures that those who make themselves sick with high cholesterol, sugar and other refined foods, stay alive despite what evolution might select for them.”
Let me see if I’ve got this straight: The best minds in evolutionary science believe they came into existence because evolution has been an unstoppable force over hundreds of millions of years, but the best minds in medical science stopped evolution in its tracks within a single generation.
Is it just me, or does that sound like the plot of one of the X-men movies?
Feel free to leave a comment. Read other columns in this discussion here. 

Bill K. Underwood is the author of several books, all available at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing a book.

No comments:

Post a Comment