Materialists embrace the concept as the ultimate explanation of life. As an evolutionist sees it, the trillions of interactions that occur in every cell moment to moment keeping us alive came into being as a result of chance occurrences over time. We are to believe the billions of variations in nature, perfectly fitted to environmental niches, are all a result of randomness being sorted by blind natural pressures over time. To evolutionists (materialists/reductionists), we, and all of the beauty and complexity of life of which we are a part, are just so much inevitable "thermal noise." All that is needed are some atoms (where those came from is conveniently ignored) and time (where that came from is also ignored) and kazaam! Life eventually emerges. (For more on this subject see my book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy. I wrote it a thousand years ago or so but it is proving truer with each emerging scientific discovery.)



On the face of it, it is absurd. It hasn't become more rational with over a century of scientific discovery, probings into the sub-atomic level, half the earth turned upside down looking for "links," and countless animal and plant experiments proving nothing more than creatures vary within their defined types but do not transmutate into new organisms.

For over a century, medicine (and reductionistic nutrition) has been structured based upon faith (like in religion) in evolution. The modern medical approach is materialistic/evolutionary in that it assumes we are just an assemblage of nuts, bolts and plumbing and that repair will come from merely understanding more fully the mechanics. The fact (not theory) that modern medicine is not only in the main ineffective, but is outright dangerous (see "Is the U.S. Healthier than Ever?") should cast suspicion on its philosophical materialistic/evolutionary underpinnings.

The danger of materialistic/evolutionary thinking is the cockiness it creates. It wrongly assumes we can know everything from a materialistic viewpoint. It is wrong scientifically because the deeper we go, the more unknowable things become...such as ultimate origins, infinity, and the uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanics (study of the smallest atomic particles). Since humans have unveiled some of the mysteries of the past - long cloaked in religiosity and mystery - by merely looking materialistically closer, then we will similarly solve all present questions, it is reasoned. If something works (like the Industrial Revolution), then more of the same (materialistic study) will work too, is the thinking.

But we must be careful of extrapolation. Because I can jump over the couch (which I thankfully still can without falling on my face too often), does not mean with enough practice I can jump over the moon. The big-picture evolution - that we are nothing but hydrogen stardust acted on by known forces of nature over time - is the jump-over-the-moon feat. Knowing the mechanics of genetics and watching fruit flies mutate into different kinds of fruit flies is the easy jumping over the couch kind of thing.

The genetics of Mendel replaced the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics to lay the groundwork for modern evolutionary theory. Cast aside was the wishful thinking that if you got real smart, you would pass that on to your children. Or if you did a lot of curls, your children would get big biceps.

But new research is casting doubt on the fundamental sacred mechanism of evolution, that random mutations selected by the environment create survival of the fittest. (See also my previous article on morphogenic fields. Scientists at Harvard's School of Public Health have discovered nonrandom result-oriented mutations. In other words, if the environment dictates a change, this "need" will cause mutations that create the desired new form (phenotype). They are finding that bacteria are choosing which mutation they will produce. Instead of just DNA encoding m-RNA that creates protein that creates form to brave the environment, the reverse is happening. The environment is perhaps sending a message in reverse up this chain to DNA, forcing the appropriate mutation. This flies in the face of the central dogma of evolutionary molecular biology that the cells' experience (other than mutations which are practically 100% deleterious) may not influence the sequence of bases in the DNA molecule. One scientist wrote regarding this evidence, "molecular biology...has deserted the reductionist." This is not to suggest that Lamarckism is correct, just that it might not be so wrong after all. This also does not mean that organisms can change into anything depending upon the environmental circumstances. It just means that the environment interplays with the genome more than previously thought and that life is not a pure linear manifestation of a genetic blueprint.

Time and further investigation will inevitably show the naivetè(c) of the materialist-reductionist-evolutionist. But old religions die hard.

In the meantime you can be ahead of the learning curve by understanding that there is far more to reality than meets the eye, that those who pretend complete knowledge or surety are the most dangerous, and that what we do, how we approach life may impact us far more profoundly than we might imagine.

Life, health, nutrition and healing are holistic, not reductionistic. To be the best in health that you can be will not come from physicians splitting atoms, but requires synergy with nature - reacquainting your genome with the environmental context from which it was derived. That's the essence of The Optimal Health Program??¢ [ http://www.wysong.net/optimal_health_page1.shtml ]