Interesting, but I’d like to see a survey that looks for whether there are corelations between people’s religious/non-religious beliefs and their beliefs about diet. It’s plausible that those who don’t believe in evolution won’t take paleo arguments seriously, but there are non-paleo arguments for low carb, and I take those more seriously. It’s hard to be sure a priori how similar we are to paleolithic people. We’ve been through some selection and some random change since then.
It wouldn’t surprise if the real connection between religion and low fat is by way of asceticism.
I don’t think you’d see such a correlation yet. As soon as these ‘scientists’ sound the ‘low carb’ == ‘evolutionism’ alarm, you may see a swift realignment from the creationist populace.
Oh, but the truth of the matter is irrelevant. It may be true, or it may be false, but as soon as the faithful get wind of the ‘evolutionism’ connection, they will certainly take the opposite side, just to be sure.
My point is that this will be sufficiently controversial among scientists that by the time it shows up on the creationists’ radar, the connection to ‘evolutionism’ won’t be obvious or clear cut.
Interesting, but I’d like to see a survey that looks for whether there are corelations between people’s religious/non-religious beliefs and their beliefs about diet. It’s plausible that those who don’t believe in evolution won’t take paleo arguments seriously, but there are non-paleo arguments for low carb, and I take those more seriously. It’s hard to be sure a priori how similar we are to paleolithic people. We’ve been through some selection and some random change since then.
It wouldn’t surprise if the real connection between religion and low fat is by way of asceticism.
Also, re: Hanson’s farmer-forager concept.
I don’t think you’d see such a correlation yet. As soon as these ‘scientists’ sound the ‘low carb’ == ‘evolutionism’ alarm, you may see a swift realignment from the creationist populace.
I’m not so sure that would happen. Keep in mind evolutionary psychology is extremely controversial even among scientists who are atheists.
Oh, but the truth of the matter is irrelevant. It may be true, or it may be false, but as soon as the faithful get wind of the ‘evolutionism’ connection, they will certainly take the opposite side, just to be sure.
My point is that this will be sufficiently controversial among scientists that by the time it shows up on the creationists’ radar, the connection to ‘evolutionism’ won’t be obvious or clear cut.