524: Kevin Brown Says The Bible Proves There’s No Such Thing As The ‘Paleo Diet’

Written on December 19, 2011

Right-click to save this episode to your computer.

file size: 17.8mb

Today, Jimmy rings out 2011 with a controversial guest as he invites back Liberation Diet author Kevin Brown to The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show With Jimmy Moore! Kevin takes the position that evolution is not real, and therefore there is no such thing as a ‘Paleo Diet.’ This should be interesting to say the least, so let’s all listen in!

LINKS MENTIONED IN EPISODE 524
- Support our sponsor: Glen Frederich’s HoldTheCarbs.com (get a FREE BAG when you use the coupon code “LAVIDAFREE”)
- Support our sponsor: Low-Carb Quest Protein Bars
- Kevin Brown bio
- Kevin’s “Liberation Wellness” blog
- Kevin’s column on Biblical nutrition: “Spiritual Side Of Healthy Eating”
- RELATED BLOG POST: “Can A Christian Follow A Paleo Low-Carb Diet?”
- RELATED PODCAST: 369: Personal Trainer Kevin Brown Offers Up A Low-Carb ‘Liberation Diet’

Bible, high-fat, Low-Carb Lifestyle, Paleo

32 Comments - Leave a comment!

Timshel

Hi, Jimmy
Very interesting show…I’ve always wondered about Paleo Diets and if the Bible were in agreement. I like how Kevin didn’t try to go beyond what was contained in the Scripture to extrapolate and make his point of view more convincing.
I thought of one of your former guest who said that fruit is just candy growing on a tree. Since we are so far removed from the way Adam and Eve lived it’s reasonable to say that our food is drastically different too. With all the breeding of fruits that’s been going for hundreds of years it’s no wonder fruit is not really good for us. Plant breeders have continually tried to products fruits sweeter and sweeter to the point we now have “candy”. In the Bible at Numbers Chap 13 vs 23, it took two men to carry a cluster of grapes. Things have changed…

Timshel

ooops meant too say, produce fruits sweeter….
back to spelling 101

http://www.facebook.com/people/Kem-Johnson/100001811404457 Kem Johnson

Only in America.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UIR6PYNT2YTFJTHKSF6CYCICMY Lawrence

Jimmy,

I have always appreciated your openness, in letting people of differing opinions, express themselves on your show. It shows a real level of intellectual integrity on your part for allowing them this platform. But, I have to say, after listening to your interview with Kevin Brown, Harley “Durianrider” Johnstone looks like Stephen Hawking (okay not quite).

I don’t intend to be deliberately offensive to people, but falsity is falsity, and it should be called such. Whenever someone questions the theory of evolution, as an explanatory paradigm, and especially does so with no scientific evidence backing up his rejection of evolution, then I think he has no credibility. Evolution functions as a guide for the world of biology, and without it, many of the things that we know would not make sense, and that includes such things as immunology, epidemiology, genetics, species development, anthropology, neuroscience, psychology, and, yes, diet. And that is far from an exhaustive list. To exclude the theory of evolution from a conversation about subjects related to the body makes about as much sense, as talking about physics, but denying the existence of gravity, time, and matter.
Kevin Brown is clearly more motivated by promoting unproven, and quite frankly, disproven, religious dogma, than he is in the promotion of a real science based perspective on diet and health. Carbon dating and genetic testing have been done on humans and their hominid precursors as well as their coprolite (fossilized feces) remains. Such analysis, which has been done by scientists all around the world, and has gone under very rigorous peer review, reveals that humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, and human’s evolutionary predecessors have lived for millions of years, and in all that time they never had the starch load or fructose load that we incur today, and it also demonstrates that they got a large proportion of their caloric intake from animal protein and fat.

The ability for humans to obtain their largest percentage of calories from starch, on a regular day to day basis, only began with the advent of agriculture, which happened around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Read Dr. Jarred Diamond’s award winning book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” for more information concerning this topic. Given that REAL human history, and the history of those species who were the evolutionary predecessors to humans, showed that we lived for hundreds of thousands to millions of years on a diet absent grains, with only sparse pickings of fruit and tubers, demonstrates that we are well suited to the consumption of animal protein and fat as the PRIMARY source of our calories.

But let’s leave aside evolutionary theory, the mountains of evidence it has on its side, and the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that evolution is true. Let’s also leave aside that among these scientists includes illustrious scientists who are Christian, who subscribe to evolution, such as Dr. Francis Collins, director of the famous human genome project, and Dr. Kenneth B. Miller, a famous biology professor. Let us also ignore all the scientific FACTS, which CONTRADICT the Biblical teaching on the physical world, and ignore the EVIDENCE which supports all of that. Let us look at Kevin Brown’s “theory” of diet purely from his mythological…excuse me…Biblical framework.

In minute 11:00 – 13::00 Mr. Brown claims that Adam and Eve existed around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The Bible has delineated the genealogies of Biblical characters in meticulous detail, from Adam and Eve to Abraham, and from Abraham to Jesus. Many Biblical scholars have done calculations, based on a literal reading of the genealogies, including a literal reading of the ridiculous ages of Noah, Adam, and many other figures in Genesis, and most come to an estimate that Adam and Eve existed around 6,000 years ago. Secondly, Mr. Brown claims that meat eating ONLY took place AFTER Noah and his family left the ark. What is his basis for this claim? Yes, God says to Noah “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you” (Genesis 9:3-4), but does that mean that he prohibited meat eating before? After all, Abel, Adam and Eve’s second born son, raised animals (Genesis 4:1-10), and it is conceivable that they consumed some of them. There was certainly nothing prior to the Noah’s ark fable that would indicate that God forbid the consumption of meat. So he is being a bit presumptuous in assuming that, even within in his fictional…excuse me…Biblical worldview, that humans were not suited to eating meat until Noah’s little cruise.

It should also be noted that the assumption that Mr. Brown makes, that eating bread and other wheat products must be good, because Biblical characters cultivated wheat and consumed them, is absurd for the simple fact that wheat has changed DRAMATICALLY since the days in which Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jesus were supposed to have lived. It has changed even more dramatically in the past 50 years. I am surprised, Jimmy, that you didn’t mention Dr. William Davis’ superb book “Wheat Belly” where he definitively proves that the wheat consumed throughout Biblical history is NOT the same type of wheat we produce today. Secondly, many of the metabolic issues we have today, such as diabetes and obesity, were probably not as prevalent during Biblical times, when a high starch diet was consumed, because such societies were agrarian and/or nomadic societies. Such civilizations had most of the population enduring labor intensive activities for most of their lives – a level of activity that most of us don’t do, or can scarcely conceive of. So even assuming that the wheat of Biblical times was the same as it is today, the deleterious effects from a high consumption of starch would not have been realized because a labor oriented environment would have mitigated the effects of a high carbohydrate load. So it is fallacious just to assume that because the consumption of grains “worked” for Biblical people, that it would be applicable today, in the same way that it would be fallacious to assume that the most efficient way to get to work is to ride on a donkey, because Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one (Matthew 21).

So even if we were to grant the dubious premise that the Bible is literally factual in every detail (which is the pinnacle of absurdity), and that it is a good blueprint for a human diet, Mr. Brown stills draws many assumptions from the Bible that are at best unfounded, or at worst, erroneous.
But let us be frank. The Bible is, at best, a book with some history that is greatly embellished with many fictional elements. So to look to the Bible as this repository of knowledge with respect to the science of health is misguided. When the Biblical authors asserted this or that, they were not subject to cross examination, peer review, and other people trying to replicate what they said, the way scientists have to. So who should we trust – people, who wrote in an ignorant era, where they didn’t even know what germs were, and where no one fact checked what they asserted? Or do we trust a model, the theory of evolution, whose principles are proven every day in labs; whose ideas have a predicative capacity that the Bible will never match?

I think the answer to these questions is obvious to most people, except for those who are so emotionally subservient to the religious literalism.

-Lawrence
Anonymous

Thanks for the feedback on this episode guys. I’ve gotten hate mail from people over this interview which is hilarious to me. Believe what you believe and let my guests confirm it or make you question. That’s the beauty of an open exchange of ideas.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UIR6PYNT2YTFJTHKSF6CYCICMY Lawrence

Jimmy,

Hate mail is completely uncalled for. As absurd as Kevin Brown’s views are to me, as I have explained in my critique of this interview, it is no excuse to write hateful things toward the interviewer or interviewee or to loath the interviewer for giving someone who espouses those views a hearing. The free exchange of ideas is central if we are going to make any progress. Granted, this openness to expression can give some views, which may seem ostensibly idiotic to some, a platform to be heard, but that is the price we pay for progress. It should always be kept in mind that many ideas, throughout history, which were at first perceived to be nonsense or even dangerous, but which we now take to be the truth, would not have made it this far had we not had the openness to hear them.

-Lawrence
Vesna Vuynovich Kovach

I also found it hilarious, but when I remembered this is an actual walking, talking person integrated into normal society really believing these Onionesque utterances — and that he’s not alone — I found it more scary than funny.

http://www.facebook.com/petros.constantopoulos Petros Constantopoulos

oh Jesus, really? A creationist… this will be funny

http://www.facebook.com/petros.constantopoulos Petros Constantopoulos

12minutes in and hes talking about noah’s ark… Jimmy I know you’re religious but I hope you found this as worrying as I do… I don’t remember you saying you were a young-earth creationist

http://praguestepchild.blogspot.com/ Praguestepchild

I’m sort of a militant atheist, and I’ll probably skip this interview as much as because I don’t have time to keep up as to the fact that a biblical interpretation doesn’t interest me. But I certainly don’t find it offensive.Throw all the viewpoints out there and let people decide for themselves. You do a great job of this.

Anonymous

THANKS buddy! I consider that the highest praise possible.

Steven

Christianity and evolution aren’t necessarily mutally exclusive.

Evolution doesn’t explain how the universe began, the Big Bang does
Evolution doesn’t explain how life on earth began, abiogenesis does
Evolution does explain how successive generations of organisms change over time.Evolution simply says if you have short people and tall people and if the tall people reproduce, but not the short people, then the next generation of people will be taller. On a genetic level the ‘taller’ genes have been selected.It’s actually a very simple concept and observation to make, and can be used to make some enlightening conclusions. Breeders of all kinds use evolution to improve the qualities of their next generation (think of studs).After taking some biology units I can’t imagine how a biologist, yet alone a geneticist, could operate without evolution. If you somehow wiped their memory clean of evolution, they would come up with it again, because they have to.Now, if you do believe in god there is some room for his agency. Science has yet to fully explain the origins of the big bang. So you could believe god created the energy of the big bang without having your beliefs falsified.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UIR6PYNT2YTFJTHKSF6CYCICMY Lawrence

Steven,

You are right. Christianity, when NOT based on a LITERAL interpretation of the Bible, is not in conflict with evolution. However, what Jimmy’s interview with Kevin Brown underscores is that Mr. Brown is a literalist, and therefore when he uses his literal reading of the Bible to call into question concepts rooted in evolutionary theory, like the Paleo diet, he opens himself up to criticism. With respect to subjects like abiogenesis and the Big Bang, it is correct that they are outside the purview of evolutionary theory.

However, to simply say that God created biological life from non-living material (abiogenesis), or God is the impetus behind the Big Bang, doesn’t explain anything. It is just a made up answer, with no evidence to back it up. It would be the equivalent of me saying, because I don’t know how a combustion engine works, it must be ghosts, who are behind my engine, running my car. It is an argument from ignorance. To say God is behind abiogenesis or the Big Bang is equally an argument from ignorance. It is more intellectually honest, instead of making up an answer, to say we DO NOT know how abiogenesis or the Big Bang happened.

-Lawrence

Steven

I completely agree Lawrence. In the interests of developing our understanding we should investigate the origins of the big bang scientifically, rather than being satisfied with a ‘god did it’ explanation. If the ‘god did it’ explanation was the dominant paradigm we would never have accumulated the knowledge we now have. I was saying what creationists could away with (god creating the energy behind the big bang).

Timshel the cross species fertility depends on the similarity of DNA. Cats and dogs are genetically further apart than two different races of humans. We shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees millions of years ago. That’s at least 100,000 generations, each generation taking the species genetically closer to the species we are today. I wonder what amazing project you could complete if I gave you millions of years to finish it.

Abiogenesis has chemical origins from nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, etc forming compounds that supported life. It occurred very slowly (a few billion years) and is sometimes referred to as the chemical evolution.

Timshel

Hi Steve,
Thanks for the input, where you say ” I wonder what amazing project you could complete if I gave you millions of years to finish it.” I think if I may be so bold to say that to have an “amazing project” requires an super intelligent mind beyond comprehension.
I like the discussion going on though…

Lisatruitt

You are wrong. There is ample evidence to back it up. By saying there isn’t you show your ignorance or foolishness or both. Numerous scientists who were atheists or agnostics and evolutionists have moved over to the ID movement because of the gaping holes in evolution theory. You called evolution a theory and were right to do so because that is what it is and it b it can never be proven. Neither can it be proven that there is a God. But we can evaluate the available evidence and decide which is more likely. Neither can be proven by observational science. This is what the scientists I mentioned above have been doing. One of the pieces of evidence they have studied is information science. This is the study of information which is anything which is organized and contains meaning. A book or a software program contain information which is contained in a code. Based on observational science, the only source of information is an intelligent being. Living creatures exist because of and every aspect of their growth, development and physical characteristics is controlled by the most complex informational system known of, DNA. DNA is a code based information system that contains the instructions that cellular machines use to build complex structures out of amino acids, glycerols, saccharides etc. DNA is just like a program made by an intelligent being that control a machine that manufactures a particular a product like a micro chip. The difference is it is WAY more complex. Proteins that are built in the cells by machines using the directions in DNA can involve hundreds of amino acids which are their building blocks, and have to match very convoluted three dimensional blue prints in which the amino acids are folded just right or they don’t work in the structures they are to go in. The scientists studying informational systems have concluded that saying that a complex information system like DNA must have creator the same as all other information systems and that denying this is about as dumb as seeing a message written in English or any other language in the sand on the beach an concluding that the random processes of wind and water made it.

The people who believe in evolution theory do so in spite of the evidence not because of it. Or because they falsely believe there is a great amount of irrefutable evidence for it which there is not. You have to take it on faith. You have to want to believe it because you hate the idea that there is a God who created you and that you will have to answer to.

Timshel

People, whether tall or short are still people . This applies to animals. There is variety within kinds of animals. For example dogs can vary from tiny to extremely large with different colors, intelligence, build and strength . But dogs are dogs and will only reproduce after their own kind there is no in-between stage of dogs becoming anything else. Dogs and cats can’t reproduce , not that I’ve ever seen. Similarly, people whether from different racses are still people but have diversity within them. Where’s the missing link? What “evidence” has been found as been disappointingly scarce, to the point that unscrupulous scientists falsifying their proof to try to prove their point.

Anonymous

The answers to all of your questions and concerns are readily available from peer-reviewed sources. The fact that you choose to ignore those sources and instead rely on a 2000 year old book says a lot about your willingness to accept new knowledge versus dogmatic beliefs.

http://twitter.com/rmorranis rmorranis

WORLD ENDS ONE YEAR FROM TODAY! http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tC0M#p/u/19/8jLI4LZpcNQ

I remember this guy said fruits and vegetables are just sugar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5xSNeYD714&feature=plcp&context=C3d07436UDOEgsToPDskKLFo-BfaKh3a4qwpehU5ZJ
PSH

Though I may not agree 100% with Kevin’s interpretation, it partly could be lack of time to clarify points, but I do agree and am thankful he believes in the inerrant Word of God. (I was surprised at his age of earth, I believe it is approximately 6000 years old as one of your commenters said)

For some of you who are willing you can go to a site called Answers in Genesis (AnswersinGenesis,org)and read in depth about the creationist view from the Bible, some are scientists who work with AIG or have articles published on the site. They have built an incredible Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY.

Thank you for the very encouraging program to a thankful believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Jared M Johnson

I don’t understand why you let him go through all the details of the vomit this guy is spewing out.

Shouldn’t this kind of interview go into the main premises of this persons POV, not get stuck sifting through all the different chunks and textures of the vomit looking for something worthwhile?

Premises: The bible is to be taken literally. How does this dude explain all of the contradictions of the different authors and writings in the bible over the years? Is there any serious biblical scholar that could construe the message of the bible to be so consistent and truthful?

Evolution, how does this dude ignore the evidence for evolution?

This is what people want to hear. As an interviewer, why let the discussion go past these points without addressing these problems?

Anonymous

Because I let all viewpoints be heard, Jared. I’m glad this one elicited the response it did in you…mission accomplished.

Timshel01

Evolutionist and brilliant scientists- Many people consider Stephen Hawking, the renown physicist and
best-selling author, to be the most brilliant person alive. That may be,
but brilliant and wise are two very different concepts.. Hawking thinks it impossible that a personal God exists.
The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). …
Stacie

Hi Jimmy:

I thought it was a great interview. What I find so “telling” is that the mention of God and the Bible brings out such anger in people. I live a LCHF lifestyle, but agree with Kevin Brown. We can eat as well as we can, improve our health drastically,reverse or slow progression of disease, etc.(which are all great), but we all die. And then what??? What would have been the point? Evolution offers no hope or purpose. It is a way to deny
God. I have often marvelled that intelligent people actually believe it. “The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.”

Stacie

Anonymous

You are marveled that intelligent people believe in evolution so what have you done to educate yourself about evolution as understood by scientists? Do you understand that there are deeply devout Christians who also recognize evolution as the best explanation of how life has changed over time? Not all Christians feel threatened by science and evolution. As far as what’s the point (I assume you mean the point of existence), it is too bad that you don’t see any point in your current life and apparently are only holding out for the afterlife.

http://www.facebook.com/mathyoomeeks Matt Meeks

I’m skipping this podcast, based on the intro and the comments below. Believe in any religion you want, whether there’s any evidence for those beliefs or not (or even if there’s plenty of scientific evidence contradicting your religious beliefs and dogma). However, anyone putting forth dietary or nutrition information, which should be based on science, not myth or superstition, cannot be taken seriously if they deny evolution and insist that the Earth is less than 12,000 years old. If Kevin Brown wants to make up his own diet, that’s fine with me, but I would not take his advice any more seriously than I would stock price predictions made by an astrologer.
Richard Dawkins

Jimmy I respect your ability to openly interview people with different points of view. However stuff like this is silly. This is in my opinion seeking a dietary info from a story that at very best can only be referenced for some peoples take on human morality. Very odd. I would certenialy never argue with this man though, that would be a foolish undertaking. Let’s see if we can get Luke Skywalker on the show and see what they eat in that story, It would be about as relevant.

Anonymous

Thanks for sharing your opinions, Richard.
Vesna Vuynovich Kovach

Luke and his aunt and uncle are eating some sort of stew around the table at the moisture farm house on Tatooine. It looks delicious, but no one is paying attention to it — they’re too busy trying to keep Luke down on the farm. I think that’s the most culinary moment in the series. Unless you count that thing that ate Boba Fett. Oh, and Yoda serves young Skywalker some rootleaf stew.

Wwyoud

It’s your podcast, so you can pick the content. However, when you swing SO far from scientific proof for claims, and reasonable discussions of the interpretation of sound evidence, to claims solely supported by one sect’s religious beliefs, I’m thinking you’ve just jumped the shark. I agree with some of the first posters – there’s a difference in allowing all viewpoints to discuss the best diet, versus giving a stage to a man who clearly rejects any reasoned argument that isn’t supported by an old mythology.
Angela

Kevin Brown was wrong in one aspect – Noah took EXTRA of the clean animals to eat on the Ark. It is documented in the Bible. So, Noah and his family did eat meat in the Ark.
Lisatruitt

arttt,

If you dig deeper you will find that macro evolution is not science but a religion. Macro evolution is the idea that one species can change into another different species. Micro evolution is adaptability within species. There can be quite a large range of adaptability within species but a dog is always going to be a dog. Micro evolution has been observed and is testable, macro evolution has never been observed and is not testable. There is observational science and there is historical science and many laymen muddle the two together because of their ignorance and don’t realize it. Observational science is what most people think of when they think science, and they think that macro evolution has been proven by it which is not the case. Macro evolution cannot be proven by observational science because it cannot be observed or tested. That makes it a subject for historical science only. One can try to collect evidence to prove that something happened in the past, and can have varying levels of confidence that an event happened in the past, depending on the strength of the evidence, but the occurrence of a past event cannot be definitively proven. In the case of macro evolution there is no evidence to support it. Darwin said that the evidence needed was transitional fossils showing the gradual change from one species to another, but these do not exist. Philosophers such as Dawkins take advantage of the ignorance of the public and pass off their beliefs as science to get people to accept them. The truth is that they have a prior commitment to the belief that there is no God because they do not want to believe that there is a higher authority that they are accountable to and a set morality that they should live by. The reason they believe in evolution is because it removes the need for God. If there is a God then there is no need to believe in evolution. You mention Christians believing in evolution as the best answer for the existence of everything. Why would it be the best answer if there is a powerful God loving God from which everything has come? Dawkins has actually admitted this stuff and said that Christians who get leulled into excepting evolution are on their way to rejecting god altogether which is what he wants. Darwin said he began to consider evolution because he couldn’t reconcile the suffering in the world with the existence of a loving all powerful god. How could a loving god let things be this way. But the bibles account is that the world was a paradise until man’s sin and wickedness entered the world and brought suffering. This is why a true Christian can’t believe evolution, because it contradicts the bible by saying that suffering and death was here from the beginning and man came about through it, when the bible says that the world was a paradise until man sinned and brought suffering and death into it. Evolution is an evil belief system and has been the inspiration and justification for every genocidal monster such as Hitler or Pol Pot. This does get sort taught because it would undermine the goal of getting everyone to accept evolution. So if you want to support the right and justification for someone to decide that you are an inferior and that the evolution of mankind would proceed better without you so you must be exterminated, then just continue to believe in and promote the philosophy/religion of evolution.