Most major news outlets reported this past week on the probable extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin. The baiji are a species of freshwater dolphin found only in the Yangtze river in China and there have been no reported sightings of a baiji dolphin in several years.
A group of scientists recently spent six weeks scouring the river for any sign of the baiji dolphin but failed to spot a single one. The expedition was led by Swiss scientist August Pfluger. After reaching the conclusion that the baiji dolphin are probably extinct in spite of efforts at preservation, Mr. Pfluger comments that "We have to accept the fact that the Baiji is functionally extinct. We lost the race. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world. We are all incredibly sad."
Given that evolutionists believe in the "survival of the fittest" and the "death of the least fit" it is difficult to understand saddness at the loss of a species. Under evolutionary theory, the loss of a species is the fundamental law of nature and one which cannot (and I think most evolutionists would argue) should not be altered since it is the mechanism by which this entire universe has come to be. The reaction of the evolutionist to the extinction of a "weak" species should seem to be one of optimism and joy as the fitness of all living things for this planet has increased; that is to say, that when viewed in a global sense, things will have improved for all remaining life! Perhaps they would posit that simply the existence of the baiji dolphin provides some net gain in the ever-ascending evolutionary staircase of man, a kind of prostration before the supreme ideal of biological "diversity"; but such an axiom seems to stand in opposition to evolutionary reality.
Of course the Christian has a well-founded motive to preserve species and a well-grounded reason to be saddened at the loss of life. God himself has placed man as ruling steward over all of his creation and has commanded him to manage it with wisdom. Since all of creation reflects the creative glory of God it is with sadness that we see the dimming of this reflection and the failure of man to preseverve this reflected light. From the Christian perspective then, the extinction of the baiji demonstrates more than anything the devolution of modern man since it demonstates an internal conflict between what is true and what is desired. What the evolutionist believes is at odds with what the evolutionist feels.
3 comments:
Mr. Modern,
You have not yet failed in your posts to prove a good point and cake it in humor only you could produce.
"What the evolutionist believes is at odds with what the evolutionist feels."
I disagree-
If the extinction of this species was the result of solely natural forces I would in fact feel very little remorse. The evolutionist feels remorse because the factors the let to the extinction of this species are results of human activity. The evolutionist certainly has the 'right' to feel the behaviour of their own species is negative. This in fact makes sense; if human actively is causing a loss of biodiversity it seems reasonable to assume the general trend of action is unhealthy for the environment, including our own spices.
It appears to me that there is a disconnect in your thinking here. Since all of the universe is, in the evolutionary viewpoint, the result of "natural forces" everything that happens in this universe is "natural". You seem to pre-suppose that only man is "un-natural" and therefore not a player in the process of evolution. I don't see how this claim can be logically defended or sustained within an evolutionary perspective.
Of course, the Christian worldview would largely agree with the premise that man is "un-natural". Mankind stands apart from and above all other created life and hence is qualitatively 'different' since we alone are made in the image of God. I think that your hidden pre-supposition largely vindicates the Christian perspective rather than the evolutionary viewpoint.
Post a Comment