Last night, I was flipping the dial on my radio and caught P. J. O’Rourke on NPR, plugging his latest book. He talked about going on a cruise with a bunch of Republicans to the Galopagos Islands. He noted that some might find it odd to see Republicans making a trip to what some would consider the holy of holies for evolutionary theory and Darwinism.
P.J. stated that he didn’t see the problem; according to him, the average Republican reaction to hearing an animal is endangered is “they must be delicious!”
That got me thinking, and there just might be a way to foment a bit of dissent among the liberal ranks. Because when you think about it, is there a group more opposed to evolutionary theory than environmentalists?
Consider this: when a species is endangered, it’s because it is failing to adapts to changes in its environment. Under pure Darwinism, that would mean that it should ought to die off, to make room for a species that can better adapt.
Environmentalists fight this. They find a species that is endangered of dying off, and they do all they can to prevent Darwin’s theories from applying. They are actively fighting to prevent evolution from occurring.
On the other hand, those who oppose such overreaches as have been carried out in the name of “endangered species” are actually allowing — if not encouraging — Darwin’s theories to play out as Darwin described.
All we have to do is bring this up to both sides, point out how they are actively fighting each others’ goals, and stand back to see how long it takes for them to turn on each other. Just point out how the environmentalists are doing all they can to thwart evolution, while the evolutionists are wholeheartedly in favor of allowing endangered species to go extinct.
Won’t that be fun?