The Survival of The Fattest

The Survival of The Fattest

Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Evolutionary theorists frequently come up with amazing explanations as to how different organisms evolved different structures and abilities over the ages. These are all ad hoc explanations based on pure speculation, never on empirical observations. Finally, however, one evolutionist has hit on a marvelous explanation of a certain characteristic in human beings, which those of us afflicted with this feature must hail as pure inspiration!

In an article in a weekly women’s magazine, Dr. Mike Oppenheim proposes that evolution is responsible for the tendency of people to put on too much weight, and this ingenious suggestion will at one brilliant stroke both eliminate our guilt complex and curtail our futile efforts at correction. Here is Oppenheim’s beautiful deduction.

“Millions of years of evolution have encouraged us to make pigs of ourselves, just as they’ve taught us to walk on two legs. For most of our existence we humans have been hunters and gatherers, and have had to be gluttons to survive. Prehistoric humans had no way to preserve food, so it was crucial to eat as much and as fast as possible. Those who gobbled the most had the best chance of surviving … When a hunting animal is no longer hungry, it prefers to do nothing. Exercise is not a natural human instinct … Evolution has taught us to love food and to avoid exercise.”

Presumably, back in the Pigocene Epoch of the Carbohydrous Period, certain primitive primates underwent inflation mutations which distended the corporal section by natural selection, and only the fat survived. Surely we cannot afford to thwart further evolutionary progress by thinking thin again. Let us incite riot against diet and exorcise exercise! Evolution must move onward and outward! But that is not the only remarkable dietary commentary emanating recently from evolutionary authorities. A Columbia University anthropologist, writing in the respected journal Natural History, actually suggests that people in primitive cultures ate the flesh of their enemies as a needed protein supplement!

Surely there can be no special pride in the practice of letting millions of soldiers rot on the battlefield because of a taboo against cannibalism. One can even argue that, nutritionally, the best source of protein for human beings is human flesh because the balance of amino acids is precisely that which the body requires for its own proper functioning.

After arguing that the Aztecs ate the flesh of their sacrificed captives to “overcome the deletion of faunal resources,” this author implies (though, of course, he does not specifically endorse the idea) that such a practice might again be needed by future populations.

We have thus already entered an era of continuously rising food prices in which animal flesh may soon become as much of a luxury as it was for the Aztecs… But the decline in the availability of animal proteins constitutes yet another threat to the health and well-being of future generations and is certain to provoke strong and justified public reaction.

Well, one can laugh at such evolutionary fantasies as the “survival of the fattest” or even “purple people-eaters,” but even the slightest justification of cannibalism is no joking matter and yet, in a “humanistic” society which has accepted legalized abortions and even genocide, such an idea is not altogether unexpected.

A return to true creationism becomes more urgent with each day, and each humanistic fancy, that passes.

-Reprinted from the Institute for Creation Research “Acts and Facts”