The food enzyme theory in a nutshellHowell's theory of "food enzymes" as discussed in the above two books basically proposes the following:That the enzymes present in raw foods are of significant help in digesting the foods themselves once they are put into the human digestive system. That cooking destroys these "food enzymes," forcing the body to produce more of its own digestive enzymes than would otherwise be necessary to digest the food. That the body has a finite lifetime "enzyme potential" for manufacturing digestive enzymes, which is important for preserving health and longevity; and a portion of which is unrecoverably "used up" in producing otherwise unnecessary digestive enzymes each time cooked foods are eaten. That enzymes in raw food also carry the "life force," which can be transferred to the body, enhancing vitality and longevity; and that the body must use up some of its own "life force"/"enzyme potential" to compensate whenever cooked foods (that have no life force/live enzymes) are eaten. In a nutshell, those are the primary elements of Howell's "food enzyme" theory. It is basically a hybrid two-part theory, part hypothetical science, part mystical theory. The first three bullet points above put forward the physiological elements of the theory; the fourth bullet proposes a mystical element that is, ultimately, unverifiable by experimental method, thus unscientific. In one sense, if the principle of Occam's Razor were to be employed, the fourth bullet could be pared away from the theory as entirely unnecessary, since it is essentially a redundant duplication (one restated in mystical terminology) of the physiology proposed in bullet point number three.Reference sources for theory are outdated. Although both Howell books proposing the food-enzyme theory are dated, they are still among the most often-cited references in raw-food circles. In the 1946 book, for example, most scientific references cited are from the 1920s and 1930s. (By the way, isn't it startling that three major raw-foodist references are more than 50 years old--leukocytosis, Pottenger's cats, and Howell's 1946 book?) As we proceed, we'll see several examples where Howell's claims are based on such outdated science (which is still harked back to by his proponents today) as to completely invalidate a claim by that very fact, let alone the logical problems which also riddle much of Howell's theory. Example of diversionary tactics that may be engaged in by present-day promoters of Howell's theoriesJust as relevant to our discussion of Howell's "food enzymes" theory besides Howell's own writings, though, are the flavor of the arguments made by raw-foodists who promote Howell's theories today. To begin our discussion, let's take as one example a debate over Howell's enzyme theories that occurred on the Veg-Raw email list (currently defunct) in May and June of 1998, to give an up-to-date illustration.Two commonly encountered logical fallacies.In this debate, the supporters of Howell's theories engaged in two major logical fallacies that typify the kind of reasoning commonly offered in defense of his theories. First, when asked for credible evidence for the claims of Howell, his proponents asserted that such proof was in fact provided in the unabridged (rare,