Evolution, Conservation, and Environmentalism: Logical Contradictions

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.

So what does this say about endangered species? What about the polar bear, the black-footed ferret, or some cave fish whose entire population number right around 50 adults and live in a single pool of water in only one cave? Why, we've got to protect them, of course!

But why? Well, popular environmentalist sentiments say we do. We should conserve various species (every one that we can, actually) for what reason? To demonstrate the diversity of life on earth? Well, that's nothing more than a novelty, a curious accident at best, according to evolutionary theory.

There are plenty of "endangered" species right now that only still exist and will only thrive with our direct intervention. They're no longer fit enough to survive in their own environment, but they require the aid of humanity. In a way, they've become our willing parasites. We consume resources, beg for millions of dollars in donations and grants, fight in the courts against beneficial agriculture, and spend vast amounts of time every year, for the sole purpose of helping a species propagate which, for all intents and purposes, has lost the will to survive. I'm not talking about clear-cutting forests, pouring mercury in the water table, or anything so drastic as that (though those ideas do have their place); I'm just talking about species that would've long since died out if we didn't find them and dedicate ourselves (and loads of tax money) to preserving them.

But again, why? Doesn't every rationally-minded person in America know that evolution has long since been "proven" as fact? Why are these same people spending resources (that could benefit the protection or advancement of our own species) towards protecting the rare species that are evolutionary failures? Do they hope to gain some knowledge from studying them before they die out? What kind of knowledge could be gained from a failure that couldn't be gained much better from another species that is at least moderately successful?

When it comes down to it, even preserving the environment (which is generally assumed to be a universal duty by these same biologist/evolutionists) should have its limitations, according to evolutionary thought processes. The massive consumption of resources has made our species the strong and expansive dominator of the world, with very little competition remaining. It seems that evolution has achieved greatness in us and that any action which benefits our human race, even if it means clear-cutting all the world's rainforests, should be welcomed as an evolutionary triumph, right? Where does environmentalism fit into this?

I certainly don't see the point in spending tax money on preserving failed evolutionary attempts at niche-filling species when that money could've gone towards cancer research, bionics, or some other use beneficial to our human species. When it comes down to it, do we even believe that preserving a species through our aid will encourage that species to develop and adapt in ways that are self-sufficient? Of course not! It'd be like a wild bear in a national park that learns to depend on humans (trash bins, ice chests, etc.) for survival. Its resources would be provided for it and nothing but complete dependence and the continued gullibility of well-intentioned conservationists could provide for it better.

So what's the deal? Why are evolutionists also generally conservationists and environmentalists? Why the push in scientific communities, which supposedly understand the "truth" of evolution, to secure millions of dollars of tax money to preserve species that would fail on their own? As far as I can see, there is no reason to it. Among those who claim to be the most reasonable, they're actually unreasonable in the broad application of the principles they claim to hold as truth. This is a logical inconsistency that should not be tolerated.

On the other hand, different worldviews, ones very different from random mutation and unintentional evolution, might provide perfectly feasible reasons for conserving species and protecting the environment. If each creature is seen as an intentional creation, made by a benevolent Creator, then certainly there might be something to gain from protecting them and observing them. Conservation could definitely apply here.

If someone or something far more knowledgeable and powerful than us had an intention in the creation and existence of all creatures, then we can assume that there's probably good reason for their existence and hope that we may learn something of that intention and even produce some application from it. If each species is an accident of random mutation, some more or less fitted for the compulsion to survive, then only those well-fitted for survival or upon whom we directly depend should be seen as interest to our own species.

In some more specific theistic worldviews, including the Christian one, there are numerous appeals to the idea of "stewardship" over creation. In theology, stewardship is the idea that we are caretakers, as in a garden, a farm, or a zoo, and we're responsible for contributing to the survival and well-being of that to which we've been entrusted. Creation, including all its creatures, is not seen as inherently our own personal property, but as someone else's who has charged us with caring for it and using it as needed to provide for ourselves. The idea of stewardship lends directly to the idea of environmentalism.

Evolution provides no such ideal. According to evolution, the ultimate goal is survival, propagation, and progress of species. Protecting the weakest certainly doesn't fit into that goal, so neither does conservation or broad environmentalism. This logical contradiction that we see every day in popular media and scientific journals alike should be recognized for the flawed reasoning that it is and it should be pointed out.

The idea of a benevolent Creator who has charged humanity with stewardship of his creation provides a perfectly reasonable rationale for those who are already inclined towards conservation and environmentalism. Evolution simply does not.