Dr. Wysong

(For a more thorough treatment of this subject, see the book, Solving The Big Questions As If Thinking Matters -- Why materialism, evolution, and religion have it wrong)

The subject of origins is rarely if ever considered when addressing health and nutrition. This is for two reasons. One is that the relationship has not been considered. Secondly, origins triggers thoughts about religion and evolution, controversial subjects considered not polite to talk about.

Where creatures ultimately came from is the key to understanding why they exist as they do and what the principles are of their structure, function, and purpose. This, in turn, has everything to do with how they should be fueled (nutrition) and what makes them run properly (health). Not thinking about the origin of life when trying to decide how to achieve health makes no more sense than trying to operate a complex machine without reading the owner's manual.

If some creative force is responsible for life's design, then learning about that design and respecting it would be the requisite for nutrition and health. On the other hand, if life is the inevitable consequence of blind natural law working upon matter, then simply studying natural laws and matter should be all that is necessary for nutrition and health.

Tackling (with reason and facts) emotionally charged, politically incorrect topics should be priority, not avoided, since they are the ones that impact us and our world so dramatically. Consider, for example, how politics and religion (conversational taboos) have ruled the course of history. Think about the despotic regimes and barbarous religions that have visited unthinkable misery upon the world. People attempting to survive under such tyranny have little time or inclination to worry about the nuances of nutrition and health. A hand to mouth existence is always the outcome when people simply accede to the norm, group think, and avoid the issues that underpin thinking and policy.

With regard to origins, many argue that evolution (materialism, reductionism) is the result of open thinking and challenging religious givens. That is, in part, true. However, one must always keep in mind that human enlightenment is a path, not a destination. Assumed final solutions never end up being final. Unfortunately, each new "final solution" becomes mortared-in with vested interests, educational brainwashing, and emotional allegiances. Evolution is no exception.

Since evolution is presently the underlying world view of science (old school science, that is, that has not kept pace with quantum reality), nutrition, and health, I want to briefly explore with you its validity and impact. But before I do, let me put your mind at rest regarding a prevailing fear that any challenge to evolution means organized religion is the only other option. Since organized religion has an uncomely history of irrationality and dogma, many reject any challenge to evolution because they think its demise would mean that they must accept religious holy books and doctrines they believe to be illogical. That is not where you are being led with this discussion.

The human duty is to facts, reason, and fearless open-mindedness. Nothing is sacred and unchallengeable, including religion and evolution. Yes, religion has stood in the way of progress. It prevented surgery, attributed disease to demons, tortured and killed questioning minds, ignored microbial pathogens, and on and on. But the concept of evolution has also stood in the way of progress. Not with crusades and inquisitions, but with more subtle tactics of educational propaganda, intelligentsia bullying, and institutional mind control.

For example, the evolutionary belief that we are a mere assemblage of atoms that can be manipulated with impunity and can endlessly evolve, is the basis for the nonsensical "100% complete and balanced" claim on food labels that has resulted in millions of people and animals being nutritionally compromised and suffering disease and death (see The Myth of "100% Complete and Balanced" Processed Pet Foods). Analytical percentages do not completely define life and health, nor do they completely define nutrition. Modern medicine, following the same know-it-all evolution-based, materialistic/reductionistic approach has become the number one killer and visits unspeakable misery with foiled attempts to manipulate the body with drugs and surgery as if it were a mere machine (see Chapter 17 of Dr. Wysong's book, Living Life As If Thinking Matters -- The Greatest Threat to Health, Truth 80: Modern Medicine is the Greatest Killer, and Why You Must Fear Modern Medicine). If the evolution model is correct and life is a mere composite of atoms, with all of our technology we should by now be vanquishing diseases such as cancer and degenerative diseases. But we aren't. Trillions of dollars have been spent on wars on cancer and the like, but no real progress has been made. As explained and documented in the above links, things are even getting worse.

The death and misery as a result of the materialistic view of reality far exceeds that of all wars and all religious oppression combined. Yet this underlying philosophical  cause is not even recognized, much less addressed. If evolution--the idea that life sprang spontaneously from atoms and can endlessly change--is true, then materialism and reductionism are also true and there should not be the failed results we see with materialistic/reductionistic nutrition and medicine.

Moreover, evolution should be scientifically valid, meaning it should comply with facts, reason, observation, and be reproducible. But that is not the case.

For example, evolution claims life can spontaneously emerge from inorganic matter. But this has never been observed nor is it reproducible in spite of hundreds of years of alchemy and biopoiesis experiments. Even if scientists were able to create life from inorganic elements, that would only prove intelligence, not material spontaneity, can create life.

Furthermore, evolution asks the impossible, namely the setting aside of immutable natural laws. One such law is the Law of Biogenesis which states that life can only spring from preexisting life. There has never been an exception to this law, and it negates, ipso facto, the very beginning of evolution.

Another impasse is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which demands that order (form of entropy and information) can only decrease over time--absent intelligent intervention. The essence of life is order on an infinite and unimaginable scale. We experience the Second Law every moment of every day, from the inevitable aging of our bodies and cars, to the forever challenging task of keeping our homes neat and orderly. Everything degrades.  An inorganic soup of atoms in a primordial sea would know no special privilege and somehow, magically, assemble itself into the unbelievable complexity of nucleic acids, enzymes (something scientists have still not been able to synthesize), organelles, and living cells. With no intelligent intervention, it would just remain a chaotic soup that only got messier. It would not, and could not create from itself you reading this and me writing it.

Furthermore, if by some miracle life were to emerge, the Second Law would point it in the direction of breakdown, not synthesis and transmutation into more and more complex states. The whole universe points one way, disorder, and that is the antithesis of evolution.

And no, time does not solve the problem. Time is the enemy of order, not its benefactor. Watch what happens with time's arrow at work in the garage or closet-- if you do not intelligently intervene.

And no, fossils do not prove evolution either. The paleontological record is filled with more complex organisms predating the more simple. Additionally, fossilization and the layering of such, is evidence of catastrophe, not eons with dust settling over each phylogenetic period of Earth's history. Such evidence is simply ignored or labeled inconsequential aberrations because the "truth" of evolution is assumed a priori.

Evolution also takes for granted too many starting materials. It begins with atoms, a functioning universe, energy, and natural laws with no explanation for where these things came from in the first place. Not only does it not explain these beginnings, it doesn't even attempt to.

Nevertheless, evolution is widely believed. But this is in large part because of its improper definition. Evolution is taken to mean change. Since we see change everywhere in the biological world, that then is extrapolated as proof of evolution. But the true meaning of materialistic evolution has to do with order of magnitude. It is atom to man change, not simple genetic variation within a syngameon (creatures that can only breed within their own kind).

Extrapolation is a useful tool... if properly hemmed in by reason and facts. For example, it can be extrapolated that a sprinter with more and more training will run faster and faster. But that does not mean he will one day break the sound barrier. It can also be extrapolated that if a high jumper jumps higher with some training, he will jump even higher with more training. But that does not mean he will one day be able to jump to the moon.

Also consider that just because various chemicals have the potential to combine spontaneously, that does not mean they can assemble automatically into something like a DNA molecule carrying the equivalent information of hundreds of millions of pages of Encyclopedia. Furthermore, just because creatures can vary in size, shape, features, and color, that does not mean they can endlessly change into whole new creatures incapable of even breeding back with the original stock.

No evidence exists in science or paleontology to prove otherwise. Nor has any detailed biochemical mechanism ever been described (much less observed) for how any organ can arise from a chemical milieu, or how any organ can change into something it is presently not. If there is no logical mechanism, nor detailed step by step, gradation by gradation, proof of evolution from one organ or interbreeding kind of creature to another, then there is no proof of evolution.

Granted, these cursory examples may not be convincing to the already convinced. Moreover, I have not explained what the alternative to evolution is if it is not religion. For the purpose of this brief treatment I simply wanted to help you realize that the subject of health and nutrition is inextricably linked to our philosophical view of origins and needs to be considered carefully, open-mindedly, critically, and with the courage to challenge assumed givens, including evolution.

As mentioned above, I have written a book that is a thorough treatment of the subject and I encourage you to read it. I am so confident of its value to you in terms of not only opening your mind to new ways of thinking about origins and its impact upon our lives -- whether you are an evolutionist or religionist -- that it is offered with a money back guarantee.