Opinion | Dr. Soliman’s Response to Critics: A Scientific and Biblical Perspective

Public scientific debate is healthy. It encourages scrutiny, exposes weaknesses in arguments, and ultimately advances our understanding of the truth. However, such debate should always be conducted with civility, respect, and a commitment to evidence. Unfortunately, some of the reactions to Dr. Soliman's recent presentations crossed the boundaries of constructive criticism. While disagreement and rigorous questioning are essential elements of science, personal insults, ridicule, and attacks on an individual's competence or educational background do not contribute to meaningful scientific discussion. They shift attention away from the evidence and towards personalities.

Critics should therefore be reminded that challenging an idea does not require attacking the person presenting it. A strong scientific rebuttal addresses claims, examines mechanisms, presents evidence, and explains where an argument succeeds or fails. Likewise, those who make scientific claims—especially claims that challenge established understanding—must be willing to defend them with precision, transparency, and credible evidence.

It is within this context that Dr. Soliman's response to his critics, deserves careful examination. His willingness to engage opposing viewpoints publicly is commendable. However, the discussion raises important questions about scientific definitions, interpretation of physiological processes, the strength of evidence presented, and the consistency of using Scripture in discussions about nutrition.

The purpose of this opinion is not to dismiss Dr. Soliman's views because they differ from mainstream perspectives, nor to defend the disrespectful reactions of some critics. Rather, it is to examine whether the scientific arguments presented are consistent with established physiology and whether the biblical references used support the conclusions drawn.

Digestion Is More Than Enzymatic Hydrolysis

One of the central arguments presented was that beans and green leafy vegetables "do not digest" because humans lack the enzyme cellulase. It is certainly correct that humans do not produce cellulase and therefore cannot enzymatically hydrolyze cellulose (Ref. 4, 2). That fact has been well established for decades.

However, this is not the complete scientific picture.

Modern physiology defines digestion far more broadly than enzymatic hydrolysis alone. Digestion includes mechanical, chemical, enzymatic, and microbial processes that collectively transform food into forms the body can utilize (Hall, 2021; OpenStax, Anatomy & Physiology, 2nd ed.). 

The process begins with chewing in the mouth, continues with gastric acid and muscular mixing in the stomach, and extends through enzymatic activity and microbial fermentation in the intestines.

From this perspective, stating that beans and green leaves "do not digest" is an overstatement that does not accurately reflect established digestive physiology.

A more scientifically defensible position would be to state that certain components of these foods—particularly cellulose and portions of insoluble fibre—are not digested by human digestive enzymes. Instead, these components undergo incomplete digestion and reach the colon, where they are fermented by intestinal microorganisms (Flint et al., 2012).

This distinction may appear subtle, but in science, precision matters. Small differences in wording can substantially change the meaning of an argument.

The Role of Gut Microorganisms in Digestion

The repeated challenge to critics to "name the enzyme" responsible for digesting cellulose was rhetorically effective but scientifically incomplete. Humans indeed lack cellulase. Yet the human digestive system is more than human enzymes alone. It functions in partnership with trillions of microorganisms that play indispensable roles in digestion and metabolism.

The fermentation of dietary fibre by gut bacteria produces short-chain fatty acids—including acetate, propionate, and butyrate—which are absorbed and used by the body as sources of energy and as signaling molecules with recognized physiological functions (Koh et al., 2016; Ríos-Covián et al., 2016). Consequently, the absence of a human cellulase enzyme does not establish that green leafy vegetables are "not food." Rather, it demonstrates that humans rely, in part, on their gut microbiota to process certain plant components.

Scientific Claims Requiring Scientific Evidence

Several additional claims made during the presentation also warrant careful examination.

Assertions that;

1. green leafy vegetables mechanically "scratch" the intestinal lining, that dietary fibre causes chronic intestinal inflammation,

2. vegetables stimulate GIP and GLP-1 in a manner that drives pathological insulin secretion, or

3. routine vegetable consumption contributes to fatty liver disease

represent substantial departures from prevailing scientific understanding of nutrition and gastrointestinal physiology.

Science has advanced precisely because accepted ideas remain open to challenge. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require correspondingly strong evidence. Where conclusions differ from the current body of research, they should be supported by well-designed mechanistic studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses. Without such evidence, these propositions remain hypotheses requiring further investigation rather than established scientific facts.

The Importance of Scientific References

This points to a broader issue in public scientific communication. Confidence alone is never sufficient. Scientific credibility rests on evidence that others can examine independently. Referencing peer-reviewed studies allows audiences to evaluate the underlying data rather than relying on the authority or conviction of the speaker.

For example,

• If the argument is that oxalates significantly impair mineral absorption, the relevant clinical literature should be cited.

• If the claim is that green leafy vegetables provoke sufficient GIP and GLP-1 secretion to promote fatty liver disease, the audience should be directed to the human studies supporting that pathway.

• Likewise, if dietary fibre is alleged to cause structural injury to the intestinal lining, histological or clinical evidence should accompany that assertion.

Such an approach strengthens—not weakens—a scientific argument, as the audiences examine the evidences rather than relying solely on the confidence of the presenter.

A Biblical Perspective on Plant Foods

Another dimension of the discussion deserves equal attention. The presenter has, in previous lectures, appealed to religious books like the Scripture and the Qur’an to support some of his teachings. If biblical authority is invoked, then the full biblical witness should also be considered.

Genesis 1:29 records God's original dietary provision for humanity:

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (food)." (Genesis 1:29, KJV)

Following the Flood, Genesis 9:3 expands humanity's diet:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3, KJV)

These passages plainly present green plants as part of God's provision for human nourishment. Consequently, any argument that concludes green leaves are fundamentally "not food" should explain how that conclusion aligns with these texts. If Scripture is to serve as supporting evidence, it should be applied consistently and comprehensively.

Conclusion

The exchange between Dr. Soliman and his critics provides an important lesson about how scientific discussions should be conducted.

Criticism should never descend into insults or personal attacks. At the same time, scientific claims must be evaluated through evidence, precision, and reproducibility rather than confidence alone.

The strongest arguments are not those delivered with the greatest certainty, but those that withstand careful examination. In discussions about nutrition, physiology, health, or any other field, the strongest arguments are those that combine intellectual honesty, methodological rigour, accuracy of language, and evidence that can withstand independent scrutiny.

Science is not a contest of personalities. It is a disciplined search for truth. And when science and Scripture are both brought into the conversation, both deserve careful, honest, and consistent treatment.

Article References

1. Flint, H. J., et al. (2012). Microbial degradation of complex carbohydrates in the gut. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

2. Guyton, A. C., & Hall, J. E. (2021). Textbook of Medical Physiology (15th ed.).

3. Koh, A., et al. (2016). From Dietary Fiber to Host Physiology: Short-Chain Fatty Acids as Key Bacterial Metabolites. Cell.

4. Nelson, D. L., & Cox, M. M. (2021). Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (8th ed.).

5. OpenStax. (2023). Anatomy & Physiology (2nd ed.).

6. Ríos-Covián, D., et al. (2016). Intestinal Short-Chain Fatty Acids and Their Link with Diet and Human Health. Frontiers in Microbiology.

7. The Holy Bible, King James Version. Genesis 1:29; Genesis 9:3.