Jimmy Moore Lies Again
(so what else is new)
In what I can only assume is an attempt at humor because it is so laughable, Jimmy Moore wrote a "Grokie Do" list for the paleo community the other day. I'm considering discussing some points further, but his very first bullet point was regarding Paleo Christians:
This to me is one of the great unspoken taboo topics that’s been simmering beneath the surface for the past several years in the Paleo community that nobody really seems to want to address. I attempted to do just that in this November 2010 blog post, but the not-so-subtle digs at people who believe in God and also support and use the Paleo lifestyle has only gotten worse. ... Whether you choose to believe in God or not, that’s a personal decision made by the individual that should be respected. Unfortunately, somehow there’s this misconception out there from some people in the Paleo community who seemingly have such utter contempt for Christians that they think if you believe in Jesus then you obviously don’t believe in the theory of evolution, you must think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you can’t possibly believe there was such a thing as the Paleolithic era and other such examples exposing their downright ignorance of what Christians actually believe. ...
Note Jimmy's assumption that stating a "fact" for many Christians, translates in his eyes to someone showing "utter contempt" for Christians. I've seen an awful lot of unwarranted ridicule around this community, but it is equally unwarranted to attach malice to those making a legitimate point on that basis. This is nothing new for Jimmy to conflate anonymous bashing with legitimate criticism ... whatever to stir the pot. Which, by the way, I will point out is not very Christian himself and I'm pretty sick of Christians hiding behind their religion to avoid criticism which is something Jimmy Moore does with regularity. But I digress ...
In comments Jimmy has this exchange:
Well, first it's nice to see Jimmy acknowledge I'm not the only negative nanny out there! LOL. But let's get to the meat of his response. First, it is interesting to note that he makes a distinction between his public disclosures and his beliefs. So others are being chastised by Jimmy Lie in Plain Sight Moore for supposedly spreading misconceptions, when his statement above is quite consistent with a privately held belief that would make their misconceptions not misconceptions at all. That was a mouthful! Put another way, Jimmy seems to be having it both ways so he can bash others using the technicality that his beliefs have never been expressed publicly. Not that he doesn't hold them. Clever.
But it's a lie. Here's Jimmy again:
Earlier this year I wrote a blog post entitled “Can A Christian Follow A Paleo Low-Carb Diet?” and Kevin responded to my question by denying the existence of an evolutionary perspective. I knew when I recorded this episode that it was gonna fire people up–boy did it ever! When you receive both praise and hate mail from people about the same interview, you must be doing something right.
To Repeat:One of the people who e-mailed me after hearing this podcast, which he described as “bad,” exclaimed matter-of-factly that “evolution is a fact…the Bible is a fairy tale.” Because I shared in a follow-up e-mail with him that I’m a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution and that the Bible has great meaning in my life, he actually cancelled his reservations for The Low-Carb Cruise coming up in May 2012. Oh well, it’s his loss and seems rather immature to do over a simple disagreement about something a podcast interview guest shared. Very strange.
mrfreddy: Haven't you said before that you didn't believe in evolution?
Jimmy Moore Jan. 24, 2013: I've never publicly stated my position on that issue.
Jimmy Moore Dec. 23, 2011: I’m a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution.Gee ... I wonder where these people get their misconceptions from ....
This guy has some nerve criticizing others for pointing this out and painting them as ridiculing Christians for merely pointing out the common conceptions of Christian beliefs.
Comments
One of the people who e-mailed me after hearing this podcast, which he described as “bad,” exclaimed matter-of-factly that “evolution is a fact…the Bible is a fairy tale.” Because I shared in a follow-up e-mail with him that I’m a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution and that the Bible has great meaning in my life, he actually cancelled his reservations for The Low-Carb Cruise coming up in May 2012. Oh well, it’s his loss and seems rather immature to do over a simple disagreement about something a podcast interview guest shared. Very strange.
Of course what he doesn't tell you is he was the one hung up on the "Darwin" and again notice that he uses the word "theory" of evolution. I told him I used the word to mean change over time and he quit responding to me.
I also think that cancelling my cruise is called voting with my money and I made a good decision.
Also, it is a pretty well known fact that the bible has been re-written at least 24 times to suit however was in power at the time.
Jimmy Moore is a lair.
jimmy in a post here http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/... you said: "I shared in a follow-up e-mail with him that I’m a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution"
LLVLCBlog Mod Chris Highcock • 4 hours ago −
I suppose it depends on what your definition of that term means. I'm open to hearing what others think evolution means. Sounds like a semantic issue.
Science is boring, Jimmy is entertaining, give us more Jimmy.
;-)
I think a real issue is the lack of vetting of many of the so called Paleo gurus. Trumped up credentials and books written with a true lack of scientific knowledges
LLVLCBlog Mod thekoof • 15 hours ago
Who do you think needs to be vetted more?
WHY NOT START WITH JIMMY!!
jimmy in a post here http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/... you said: "I shared in a follow-up e-mail with him that I’m a Christian who does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution"
1 •Reply•Share ›
LLVLCBlog Mod Chris Highcock • 5 hours ago
I suppose it depends on what your definition of that term means. I'm open to hearing what others think evolution means. Sounds like a semantic issue.
0 •Reply•Share ›
Simon Carter LLVLCBlog • 2 hours ago
Jimmy, sounds like you lied and have been found out by Chris!
0 •Reply•Share ›
LLVLCBlog Mod Simon Carter • 34 minutes ago
Not sure how I "lied" but I appreciate your input. Having a good working definition of terms is always an excellent idea in any discussion.
If Paul (astrophysicist) Jaminet met Jack (neurosurgeon) Kruse ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=THNPmhBl-8I
I have always loved science and read a lot of both science and philosophy in my youth before my conversion. I was accepted to the Bronx High School of Science (but didn't go cause daddy decided to move to Miami, sigh), and wanted to study astrophysics. I believe in a billions-year old universe and an Old Earth, but I also believe in a universe created by the God who said, "let there be" and with whom my spirit interacts daily. He has proven His existence to me, though I certainly understand the agnostic --though the atheist seems to me as religious as the Christian in the absolute position.
I promoted a paleo style diet on my old blog on the basis on the Bible, where humans were told to eat the fruit of the ground, the seed-bearing plants, etc, before we were given leave to eat the meat/flesh of whatever was on earth and in the seas. That pretty much covers a Paleo Diet--what God gave our initial parents (Adam and Eve) and then the initial new parents (Noah and his wife and family) to eat. Fruits, vegetables, seeds, flesh of fowl-fish-animal-etc. Even if one never set foot near a Paleo or Primal primer, one could gather what is good to eat just from Genesis. :D Granted, they had bread products once agriculture blossomed, but the general religious strictures against gluttony/drunkenness/excess/immoderation/sloth/lack of rest/etc would take care of a lot of the problems we have today.
Those of use who believe in some form of evolution have no issue with the body adapting to foods, paleo or neolithic. The human body is created (heh heh) to adapt. It still does that--as some will point to with those who can handle starches better or lactose better, etc.
Jimmy can be a creationist or evolutionist or theistic evolutionist or old earther or new earther, and that's not even an issue. As a Christian, I'd say, "Be honest and forthright. Do not be corrupted by the desire for gain. And be self-controlled around food and drink." I do battle against my lesser angels to not be messed up in those areas myself. Gluttony and sloth are still sins. And so is false witness.
I don't care if the paleo crowd ridicules me because of my faith. I know in whom I have believe and He has shown himself to me. That is all that matters--TO ME. And no Christian needs a Sisson or a Wolf to know that fruits, vegetables and protein are the core of a good diet based on the mandates to the fore parents, pre and post flood. That's all Jimmy needs to know, really. Although I guess he kinda shuns a lot of those seed-bearing plants. :D
I come here for the science, as a Christian. I value what studies and research says, if it's done right. And I value Evelyn's ability to tell me when a study is set up in a weak or strong fashion and the results are not interpreted weirdly. :)
Also in Jimmy's list, Chris Masterjohn is definitely not paleo and is more "ancestral." He has a good article on fasting for Lent healthfully
http://ocawonder.com/2011/02/15/nourishing-our-bodies-during-lent-%E2%80%93-how-to-navigate-the-campus-dining-hall/
I would also note that a lot of Christian denominations that take the Adam and Eve thing literally prescribe vegetarian or vegan diets. But as a wise priest once said to me "the Bible is not a diet book."
I'm trying to recall a comment from AL-209 on one of my science posts. Not saying there hasn't been one, but if this person truly appreciated the science here, it might have made more sense to offer up a comment or two to further the discussion like once a week (there are hundreds of them) or so just to let me know! New comments pop right up there, so if it's an old post I'll catch the commentary!
http://youtu.be/sIrXqvtuBo4
> any confidence that they would be good at tasks which involve a high degree of critical thinking skills
"compartmentalization"
everyone does it, all the time. You behave differently in school[0] than in a strip club.
I would not doubt your ability to perform at school based on anything you did at a strip club.
[0] depending on your school, of course, and how many of the strippers are stripping to pay their way through medical school or a physics PhD.
He later said
' In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. -- I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, -- that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind'
http://web.archive.org/web/20090225124103/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/130/125/
But there are many mainstream Christians who are also scientists including John Polkinhorne who is an ordained Anglican clergyman and an eminent particle physicist and evangelical Christian, Frances Collins who lead the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the NIH. Both accept evolution. (and there are many more)
To me the whole thing is a non issue, no conflict.
Coming from an Anglican background in the UK,its only in fairly recent times that I realised, large numbers of American Christians don't accept evolution. I think all the mainstream churches here do Apart from a few small groups, it's only in the last twenty years or so that there has been the growth of more fundamentalist groups who have a literal approach to the Bible.
( I went to a Church of England primary school and was taught about evolution when I was about 10. I remember it vividly; we listened to a BBC schools radio series, How Things Began. The broadcaster 'went back in time' and reported from each subsequent epoch week by week. The series covered pre history from trilobites to homo sapiens. At a time before most people had television, when education was mostly talk,chalk and repetitious arithmetic and grammar exercises, it was an exciting interlude in the school week. The series was broadcast from 1941-1968.. I assume it was updated a bit over the time. There are quite a few memories of it on the internet, it probably influenced the beliefs of a generation!. )
There's a Wiki article the 'Level of support for evolution' which looks at the differences in acceptance between different countries.
Its far less a subject of contention in many places outside the US.
The Courage To Present Unpopular Views
As for whether Dennis is “outside of the mainstream,” at one time I would have agreed with you, but no longer. “Mainstream” politics now includes so much that is idiotic, vicious, oppressive, and dishonest that I think it’s quite arbitrary to rule any peaceable perspective out of bounds. I recently linked to the “mainstream” effort to deprive Steve Cooksey of his freedom of speech. Recently MF Global failed due to the theft of $1.6 billion of client funds that were supposed to be segregated and reserved for the benefit of the clients. Far from prosecuting the thieves, federal regulators, the bankruptcy trustee, and the bankruptcy judge seem to have abetted a coverup. It appears that no one will be prosecuted and the truth of where the money went and who took it will never be known. And “mainstream” media and politicians act like this is normal and unworthy of comment.
In a corrupt age, I have to consider anyone with the courage to present unpopular views and the integrity to be honest and forthright to be worthy of being part of mainstream discussion, regardless of the content of his views. Only the dishonest and corrupt should be excluded from discussion. The rest of us should look for common ground and work together to achieve something valuable, whether or not we have points of disagreement.
- Paul Jaminet
Ah, yes, the “courage” to present unpopular views like these:
http://media.tumblr.com/a0291ee97f84842b1ddb0b9b377b83f2/tumblr_inline_mh5e0bNVSC1rvpg06.gif
The truth is that the top bloggers in “paleo” don’t have the courage to stand up against rampant misogyny and racism, as long as the people espousing these views are part of their mutual admiration society. Recently Mark Sisson gave Nikoley some “link love” after he Nikoley gave a positive review to one of his new books. Robb Wolf and others have done the same thing. It might be a different matter if people like Nikoley and Mangens made original contributions to nutritional science, but that is not the case. Their blogs both mainly consist of aggregating other people’s content, often in a thinly veiled attempt to curry their patronage. Is it any surprise that Paul would defend Mangens, despite his misogynist posts and ties to white nationalist and misogynist sites, given that Mangens gave his new book a positive review?
the genetic fallacy: how the thing started has anything to say about how it ended up.
Even if Charles Darwin had started (his genesis) was as an extremely religious person, says nothing about how he ended up (the fallacy)
"Rule of thumb" for example.
> if Charles Darwin had started (his genesis) was as an extremely religious
if Charles Darwin had started (his genesis was) as an extremely religious
Was a wonderful movie either way.
"Jeff, no sane person takes a hyperlink as a blanket endorsement of every aspect of another person’s behavior, any more than they take a vote for a politician as a blanket endorsement of every act that politician has ever engaged in. A link makes only this statement: “It may be worth your while to read the content at the other end of this link.” It says nothing more than that. Nothing.
It is a safe assumption that every person is a sinner. The idea that one can’t link to useful content without (a) conducting an inquisition into the author’s ethics, and (b) depriving anyone whose ethics are found imperfect of any human contact, is socially destructive. It requires everyone to engage in a never-ending Spanish Inquisition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o
There seem to be quite a number of people around the Internet who are ready to declare other people evil and obliged to be shunned. I see this as exactly the same sin as misogyny, racism, and nationalism. It is declaring the other evil and seeking to drive them out of society.
You didn’t like the stone casting line. Try this one: http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm."
...
Surely only educationally deprived Americans and a few crazy Arabs think otherwise. There is a whole world out there of sophisticated individuals for whom this is a non-issue.
If someone seriously proposed that being a member of a religious faith (as opposed to certain cults or sects) undermined someone's science credentials, I might respond that such a position reveals such a deep ignorance of, or lack of interest in, the world in which we actually live, human psychology, how society works, its history and so on that the scientific rigour of the person espousing it might instead be brought into question.
Jimmy Moore has never struck me as anyone's idea of a diet guru - he is surely the classic everyman seeker type. This is the basis of his appeal - he'll discuss everything and try most things and report back.
It's a bit like that show "An Idiot Abroad", and I mean no disrespect to Jimmy or Karl Pilkington by the comparison.
Jimmy the Diet Guru is a straw man, Jimmy the Seeker that listeners are rooting for - will he, won't he find what we've all been looking for - is closer to the reality.
I bet MOST ex-Christians are like that. A lot of them attribute their loss of faith from ACTUALLY reading the Bible and also from taking the time and effort to examine the Bible's true origins.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..