Evolution, Conservation, and Environmentalism: Logical Contradictions

They Really Just Don't Add Up

By Adam Willard, published Dec 03, 2007
Published Content: 78  Total Views: 130,887  Favorited By: 20 CPs
Rating: 3.2 of 5
In today's philosophy of science, evolution is generally accepted as fact. So is the apparently obvious need for conservation of environment and species. However, a true evolutionist can't also be a species conservationist and broad environmentalist. It just doesn't add up.

Let's start with evolution. We all know the kindergarten version: Mankind evolved from apes, or further back, all life evolved from a primordial soup (billions or at least hundreds of millions of years ago). The details get quite a bit more complex, but nonetheless that's a quick summary that's sufficient to explain the overall results.

On the purely physical side, the theory of evolution states that small changes over time eventually create new species, new genera, and new families of life. We now understand that the "changes" which Darwin first included in his view of evolution take place on a molecular level. Strings of DNA get flip-flopped, duplicated, mutated, or anything else that results in changes to the genes of a creature.

Those genetic changes aren't always obvious, are often benign, frequently harmful, and occasionally beneficial. If the creature in which the changes occurred survives, he'll likely pass on those changes to his offspring. In turn, if they survive (or reproduce rapidly), they'll likely pass on the same change and eventually what was once a random mutation will become the accepted norm. If you accumulate enough changes, you'll eventually get an entirely new creature that can't even cross-breed with its predecessor. Voila: evolution!

Well, another aspect of evolution says that this works because in any given environment, creatures are fighting for control and consumption of needed resources. In a very complex ecosystem, this has all been balanced out and (according to Darwinism) the strongest competitor has survived to control and maintain the resources in its own little niche. Weak species, those whose eventual genetic mutations weren't beneficial enough to survive and sufficiently propagate, are slowly weeded out of the gene pool and replaced by stronger competition.

Evolution, Conservation, and Environmentalism: Logical Contradictions
Takeaways
  • Evolution's primary goals are the survival of a species.
  • So why are evolutionists trying to conserve failed evolutionary processes?
  • Theistic "stewardship" provides a perfectly reasonable basis for environmentalism and conservation.
Did You Know?
Tens of thousands of tax dollars are spent trying to preserve a single species of cave fish whose population is only 40-50 and live in only one pool and who contribute nothing but curiosity to humanity.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 16
Next >>
 
....Your points are typical of those made by Christians who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally (and excuse me, but didn't Jesus teach in parables? Did HE intend to be taken literally with those stories, or did he intend for his listeners to find a deeper meaning in them???) and who have no understanding of evolutionary theory, or just enough to get it wrong. I'm surprised at this, Adam; I thought you were better educated than the average fundamentalist evangelical. But you clearly have no understanding of the science behind the theory of evolution, much less behind conservation and environmentalism. You as a Christian should believe in conservation and environmentalism because God told you to be a steward of his world; scientists and those who understand science better than you do can believe both what you do (stewardship ordered by God) and the scientific necessity to stop altering our environment before we destroy it completely.

Posted on 03/09/2008 at 2:03:39 PM

 
...someone who accepts the theory of evolution as the theory that best explains why all plants and animals are the way they are now can also believe in conservation -- that is, protecting and conserving not only natural resources but also the creatures who rely on them. It isn't biologists who are clear-cutting forests and spewing fluorocarbons into the environment; that is done by the greedy humans who clearly have no concept of the idea that we need to preserve our environment in order to survive. Many people believe that evolution has occurred in the direction it has because that was the will of a creator; that the creator used evolution to complete his creation. It is completely rational for scientists who accept the theory of evolution as the best one we have evidence for right now to be environmentalists -- that is, to STOP destroying our environment. If life forms continue to become extinct at the present rate, then humans will too. Your points are typical of those made by Ch

Posted on 03/09/2008 at 2:03:22 PM

 
Sorry, but I can't say that this was "well-written" or "thoughful." First you talk about evolution as if biologists, scientists, and educated rational people think it is a fact. That is laughable. There is a reason it is called a THEORY. Right now, it is the theory that best explains the scientific data that some divine creator gave us the brains to find. I won't bother re-stating what mentil said; s/he is correct. Polar bears are facing extinction not because they don't fit into their niche, but because WE HUMANS have eliminated that niche. Humans, who are, according to most Christians, the only creatures with souls and a recognition of their creator, are also the only creatures who alter their environment to suit themselves since Homo sapiens appeared, rather than altering themselves to fit their environment. There is absolutely no reason why someone who accepts the theory of evolution as the theory that best explains why all plants and animals are the way they are now can also

Posted on 03/09/2008 at 2:03:51 PM

 
This is why I support eating Polar Bears and Blue Whales... just kidding. Honestly, though, social darwinism sort of takes this idea to the human race, where the "strong survive". Why should we help the elderly and the handicapped? According to social darwinists, we shouldn't. Good piece, Adam.

Posted on 02/05/2008 at 7:02:21 PM

 
Clearly you do not understand evolution, ecosystems,Darwin...I can go. But the fundamental flaw of your argument is that we are nature and our livelihood depends on forests,water, species and everything. We have not dominated the world because we have brought our selves to the brink of annihilation. "The massive consumption of resources has made our species the strong and expansive dominator of the world, with very little competition remaining." That is not a good thing. It is also wrong to think that other species of plants and animals are in competition with us. this world is symbiotic. I would suggest reading and thinking before writing such an ignorant piece.

Posted on 01/10/2008 at 11:01:02 PM

 
Extreme example, but explanatory. There is no logical incongruence here, I recommend you read a book or two from E. O. Wilson or just poke around his site @ http://www.eowilson.org/ Sorry about that comment was too long and was truncated.

Posted on 01/09/2008 at 3:01:58 AM

 
Interesting article, severely flawed but interesting. Humans and Apes share a common ancestor that is not the same as man evolving from apes, I'm sure you've heard this before. Is it possible teachings of evolutionary theory at Oral Roberts are that inadequate? Darwinist, that also happen to be Environmentalists or conservationist preserve species for the same reason we that we don't let sick or handicapped babies die. Humans long ago jumped off of the Natural Selection track and practice a modified artificial selection along with the normal mutations. People are born with Genetic diseases, we do not "Let them die off" just because Evolution happens to be true. We treat them and integrate them into society. Most of us believe that we as a species have negatively impacted the environment of a great deal of species and should act to preserve as many as possible. Genetic diversity is necessary as is a balance ecosystem. If the last Panda dies, all of china could be covered in Bamboo

Posted on 01/09/2008 at 3:01:05 AM

 
This made me rub my chin and go, "hmmm". So often people just assume that if you don't buy into evolution, you're some kind of maniacal weirdo who thinks Kirk Cameron is the best thing this side of a communion wafer. Thanks for showing that you can be an even minded, intelligent person, and still disagree with Darwin's original theories!

Posted on 01/09/2008 at 12:01:48 AM

 
Hiya. Interesting and well written article! I think the idea of conserving as many species as possible has to do with preserving 'the prevailing environment that we humans thrive in better than the other species'. Seems not only does our environment shape us, but the species existing in the environment also shape it (to various degrees). With the 'accelerated' rate of extinction due to accelerated rate of change in the environment (like global climate change), it might be to our species' benefit to try to preserve the current environment from changing into something that we wouldn't be the 'most fit' species to thrive in... That'd be my guess. :o)

Posted on 01/07/2008 at 1:01:55 PM

 
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. It was thought provoking and made outstanding points that should definitely be taken into consideration. Outstanding job!

Posted on 12/10/2007 at 3:12:15 PM

 
Very well written article! good thoughts to ponder..

Posted on 12/06/2007 at 11:12:00 AM

 
The article on evolution is quite interesting and informative - thanks for letting me read it.

Posted on 12/06/2007 at 1:12:00 AM

 
That evolution by natural selection occurs doesn't mean that it's an optimal process, or that people who believe that it occurs also believe that it should work the way it does. A cave fish dying out is very different than the majority of protected species, which are endangered because their environment has been changed by humans. That we use resources available to us to the best of our ability isn't comparable to how other animals use resources; humans use lots of non-renewable resources, while other animals use virtually none. Furthermore, this essay omits an important concept related to conservationism: the ecosystem. For example, I hate bees because I hate being stung, but I wouldn't want all bees to up and die, because I know that pollination is very important to the ecosystem (humans and other animals eat fruits, for example.) You mention several times the economic cost of conservationism; hand-pollinating flowers would cost a great deal of money, for one example. Or, imagine a r

Posted on 12/04/2007 at 11:12:00 PM

 
Great job on the article, you made some interesting points.

Posted on 12/04/2007 at 9:12:00 AM

 
A very well written and thought provoking piece. You make many excellent points. Great job!

Posted on 12/03/2007 at 7:12:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 16
Next >>
Most Commented On