Interesting, but I'd like to see a survey that looks for whether there are corelations between people's religious/non-religious beliefs and their beliefs about diet. It's plausible that those who don't believe in evolution won't take paleo arguments seriously, but there are non-paleo arguments for low carb, and I take those more seriously. It's hard to be sure a priori how similar we are to paleolithic people. We've been through some selection and some random change since then.
It wouldn't surprise if the real connection between religion and low fat is by way of asceticism.
I've long said that the only religious people I can converse with are the fundamentalists, as they at least acknowledge that truth exists. They may seek it from their holy book rather than bayes and occam but at least they acknowledge it. The 'liberals', when pressed hard enough, tend to go into some kind of relativism that really negates the entire notion of 'conversation'.
That seems like an extraordinarily hasty generalization. What you seem to be saying is that most non-fundamentalist religious people won't agree to even a common-sense definition of truth; I'm very skeptical of this claim. Have you tried using really really simple examples, like "snow is white"?
Based on the community's continuing interests in diet and religion, I'd like to point out this blog post by the coauthor of Protein Power, Michael Eades, wherein he suggests that biblical literalism tends toward a low-fat approach to nutrition over a low-carb philosophy, by essentially throwing out a bunch of evidence on the matter:
While there's a clear persuasive agenda here and I won't present a full analysis of the situation, Eades also mentions biasing use of language earlier in the article. In particular, beware applause lights and confirmation bias in evaluating.