This list should be willing to accept the view points of anyone willing to put them forth regarding paleofood regardless of their stance on evolution. Playing devil's advocate, I will stick my neck out and state that there are many who subscribe to the benefits of this WOE even though they do not subscribe to the theory of evolution. I know, how dare I say such a thing...however, one does not have to affirm evolution in order to eat healthy.
Please understand I am just stating a simple fact. I have many friends who believe in the creation theory who maintain a paleo WOE...
Trish (ducking now)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:19:42
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: PALEOFOOD Digest - 21 Jul 2009 to 22 Jul 2009 - Special issue (#2009-207)
Mr. Hoggan, your defense of William is an example of tolerant modern
liberalism taken to absurd degrees. This list should at least affirm
evolution, and my suggesting this idea, should not be compared to
attacking a scientific hero or throwing someone in a mad house—that is
sophistical demagoguery.
Ken
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:11:43 -0700
> From: "Ron Hoggan, Ed. D." <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: evolution holds health lessons- Dr. Meller's new book (9)
>
> It is common to scorn ideas that are not congruent with current majority
> beliefs and values. On the paleofood list, evolution is usually considered
> to be the foundation of the nutritional strategies we endorse. That doesn't
> make our conception of evolution or any other theory of evolution the final
> word. It is, as William has pointed out, a theory. Even among those who
> subscribe to this theory, there is considerable disagreement about many
> facets of this theory.
>
> I happen to believe that the theory of evolution, in my limited
> understanding, is the best explanation I've encountered for the many
> observations of speciation, adaptation, etc. etc. However, I'm not prepared
> to accept the notion that it is some inarguable TRUTH. I want to stay open
> to new possibilities. In the interim, and for practical purposes, I proceed
> as if evolution is a fact, but that doesn't make it a fact. I
> whole-heartedly endorse William's expressed skepticism about evolution; not
> because I agree with him that there is no evidence to support the theory of
> evolution - there is a plentitude of evidence that supports it - I support
> him because there was once considerable evidence supporting the notion that
> the earth was flat.
>
> Inaz Semmelweiss was put in an insane asylum because he thought that the
> deadly child-birth fever was transferred from one obstetric patient to
> another by doctors who didn't wash their hands. Semmelweiss was beaten by
> the guards when caught trying to escape. He died of the injuries sustained
> in that beating. Half a century later, Louis Pasteur got all the glory for
> the same insight.
>
> A contemporary of Semmelweiss, Stanislas Tanchou, studied cancer deaths and
> came to the silly conclusion that cancer increases with civilization. The
> more civilized the lifestyle people adopt, the greater their risk of cancer.
>
>
> We have persecuted outliers and dissenters for millennia. Yet it is almost
> always those who think otherwise that make new discoveries and lead us to
> new understandings. If we can't celebrate dissenting voices, let's at least
> tolerate them on the basis of the many contributions that have been made by
> their counterparts in the past. What you call "backwoods, eccentric
> comments" may someday be heralded as a heroic insight.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Ron
|
