If macro-evolution is true (which I do not believe), then we should be working on the premise of the survival of the fittest. Those who are most fit will survive and grow stronger. What then is all of the concern about a small fish in California that could be killed? That particular fish would succumb to the strength and viability of other creatures. Ultimately, it would be killed off because it is not "the fittest."
I'm sure someone else sees the contradictory nature of believing evolution and yet concerning yourself with the survival of a particular species. And yet, it's not a point that I have heard in the public discussion of evolution. Let me know if you've heard/read this somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The short answer of my own conclusion concerning this seeming contradiction: They do believe in survival of the fittest... they are simple scared to death they are not the fittest; hence, they are trying to control their own enviroment.
ReplyDelete