What's the bid deal about extinction?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'm posting this not to be inflammatory, but because I'm genuinely curious. I'm addressing this question specifically to the materialistic Darwinists out there who believe that all life evolved out of strictly natural processes, with no divine intervention and thus no divine mandate about any of it. Here's the question:

What's the bid deal about extinction?

Why should we humans care whether a species goes extinct or not? If Darwinist Evolutionism is true, not only is extinction one of the most common things that happens to species, it has no moral component at all. If a cheetah doesn't care and shouldn't care that what it just ran down for lunch was the last of the ivory bellied long-tailed antelopes, then why should we humans care? Aren't we just another species that has achieved dominance over other species though the natural abilities we've evolved? What would be "wrong" about extinction?

Now, speaking as a Christian, I have grounds for objecting to humans either exterminating other species or allowing them to become extinct through neglect. I believe that God put men on earth to be stewards of creation - to tend it and care for it, because someday we'd have to give an accounting of our stewardship. Because I believe the Scriptures and the teachings of my Church, I can state that all life has value (though human life has preeminent value), and we should take care of all creatures and creation because it's not our house - it belongs to Someone Else.

But if you don't believe that, then why should it matter if, say, the Florida Panther goes extinct? If they couldn't make it, they couldn't make it. There's no right or wrong about that, is there?

[hanguk859]

wow, very insightful, I've never thought of that specific point before, but
I agree with everything you said...

[Dernhelm]

I agree also! I'm posting mostly to bring this to the top... :p

[rosymole]

I'm not a creationist, although Christian..some would say I'm heathen (quite possibly)..but what bothers me about extinction is if it's caused by man and his actions..if he's supposed to the caretaker of all life then how can he be taking care if he ends the life of a species by his actions?
(NB I'm not well read in these things at all..and it's only my opinions..so please be gentle!)

[Tweetsie]

Well.. it's also a matter of Ecology, I had to take it last year. If a species dies out, we should care because it could lead to us dying out, and we're smarter than say a cheetah is.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

if he's supposed to the caretaker of all life then how can he be taking care if he ends the life of a species by his actions?
(NB I'm not well read in these things at all..and it's only my opinions..so please be gentle!)Well, there you're presuming the same framework I am - the Judeo-Christian framework. I agree with you, but a materialistic evolutionist who rejected the Judeo-Christian framework would also destroy that argument.

If a species dies out, we should care because it could lead to us dying out, and we're smarter than say a cheetah is.A true Darwinist would have two answers to that: first, a species can and would look out for itself, and second, if it didn't, it would deserve what it gets: extinction. But if I make sure to be careful not to "extinct" myself and my species, then why should I care what other species goes belly-up - particularly if they're of no use to me? (Again, I'm trying to argue from strict evolutionist principles here - personally, I don't subscribe to them.)

[Tweetsie]

well.. Yes.. I suppose.. I don't know what I am anymore. My parents are like atheists. And I'm just completely lost on everything about all this.

[inkspot]

Tweetsie, maybe you are a seeker? You are smart enough to see your parents may not have all the answers and independent enough to want to discover them for yourself. Bravo! I hope you find them ... I would suggest the Gospel of John in an easy New Testament like The Message Bible or the Contemporary English Version (both are available at www.biblegateway.com to read online).

This question of extinction to me reflects the question of ALL VALUES for a materialist or someone who believes in naturalism rather than God: what makes anything "good" or "bad" if there is no God? The Law of Nature is brutal: if you believe in no God but believe in nature, that is a terrible paradigm (witness the poor antelope PoTW mentions above). But outside of that, if there is no God, what governs morality? Nature knows nothing of it, and without God, what else is there but nature?

[Basilides]

Tweetsie, you have some awesome times ahead of you.

[Inklet]

But if I make sure to be careful not to "extinct" myself and my species, then why should I care what other species goes belly-up - particularly if they're of no use to me? (Again, I'm trying to argue from strict evolutionist principles here - personally, I don't subscribe to them.)

I think the standard evolutionist argument would be that because nature is so interconnected, all extinctions pose a possible threat to humanity's survival. It's rarely expressed that way, though. It's more often couched in terms of right or wrong, not in terms of what's beneficial to humans.

Perhaps if it were, we would have a debate in terms of trade-offs. "How many people's jobs must be lost to keep the northern everglade spotted mollusk safe?" is a question radical environmentalists don't want to ask. It's easier to declare that every extinction is a tragedy.

And it is, in a sense. No one wants the last of any species to die. 99% of every species that ever existed on the earth is extinct, though. Somehow we've all made it this far.

[Parthian King]

Respectfully, I don't think that is so, speaking in purely evolutionary terms. Darwin's idea was literally a dog eat dog world and ecosystem, with every species only and fully wrapped up in its own survival. There is absolutely no consciousness on the part of other creatures (even today) that the demise of either one or every one of another species has any bearing whatsoever on their own well being. Now, we may know this not to be so with certain species, but the observation still seems to stand.

The issue is whether the demise of certain species spells doom for our species, or even another species whose doom would mean our demise (meaning, either direct or indirect effect). The fact is, we have not made it all together this far. Many species are in fact extinct, having gone extinct within our lifetimes, and we just go right on ticking. In fact, if I understand Darwin properly, he views it that the extinction of some species actually makes room for the rise of others. Extinction is not bad or good for Darwin's ecological economy, it is neutral--it is merely something we observe in nature, like animals eating or mating or dying. Survival of the fittest is a law for Darwin, like gravity is for a physicist. It's simply part of the picture.

Inklet, I think the standard argument of the conservationist, not the evolutionist, is that we are interconnected in a mutually dependent way. The pure evolutionist would see that interconnection is present is many cases, but extinction of one species would not necessarily spell the demise of the other; it may in fact help. Conservationism is built upon a conviction that animal and even plant life is a kind if sacred trust, and we should find value in all kinds of life whether we can see an pragmatic value to it or not. This is similar (though grounded in different premises) to the Christian worldview.

I think the contradiction that Prince of the West is trying to point out is that most conservationists are naturalists by ideology who would (on a whole) lean more toward philosophically atheistic evolutionism than they would to theism. This puts them in an odd position, then, since they claim (again, not every one, but speaking in philosophical generalities) that all this is natural accident, yet they endow humanity with special responsibility. In other words, their intuition that humanity is indeed special and has a position of lordly stewardship (rather than one as merely another rat in the rat race) betrays the weakness of their philosophical base.

[inkspot]

In other words, their intuition that humanity is indeed special and has a position of lordly stewardship (rather than one as merely another rat in the rat race) betrays the weakness of their philosophical base.
This is a little bit what the beloved CS Lewis is saying in the first part of Mere Christianity, isn't it? That all humans agree there exists a standard of what ought to be done and ought not to be done ... but that being the case, where did the standard come from?

[Parthian King]

Yes--the so-called moral argument for the existence of God.

[inkspot]

We are having a reading group of Mere Christianity somewhere here -- I read it years ago and have just read chapter one again ... what do you think of this argument?

[Parthian King]

There are a number of "classic" arguments for the existence of God, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. The ontological argument was put forth by Anselm and basically argues for the existence of God based upon the conceopt that existence is better than non-existence, so if we can imagine a greater-than-anyone-else being, that being must exist. The teleological argument is the argument that there seems to be purpose in the universe. This is close to the argument from order, which notes the orderliness in the universe and says it had to come from somewhere (intelligent design falls into this category). The moral argument is one of the strongest as it turns a person's eyes inward and forces them to see the imago dei within themself. I think there are couple of others, but theye scape me at the moment.

I actually think the best approach (if we are going to discuss these things this way) is eclectic--a mixture of several or all. I actually think Lewis shifts in and out of the moral argument and adds teleological/order when it serves him. Since they are not hermetically sealed, it is approproate and works well. But logical proofs generally only take us to the threshhold of faith, since they usually prove the existence of an intelligent superior force, but require faith to get us into the Judeo-Christian (any another other) worldview. I think the Lord wanted it that way.

[inkspot]

I am curious to see how Lewis carries on with this in MC -- I read it once before but too long ago. I seem to recall that he sort of argues against orderliness, or rather, against a "simple" explanation of the faith, as he says in nature things are rarely simple. But I could be rememebring that wrong, or it could have nothing whatever to do with the Order argument you mention above.

[Parthian King]

I am referring to his contention that beauty does in fact exist in nature because it is universally recognized. This is what I meant by a "combination" approach: The universal recognition of beauty as something "out there" rather than "in the eye of the beholder" alone indicates that 1) we are all wired the same way after all is said and done (moral argument), so Someone must have done the "wiring," and that 2) the world has order (e.g. beauty), and therefore a wise and good Creator (order argument). The argument from order does not depend on things being simple, but rather that there is observable order in the complexity (such as the unique but nevertheless ordered intricacies of each leaf in a forest containing thousands of trees). Paradoxically, human observation and frustration with chaos and a desire for more of the little pure order there is to be had (though I think this is a perception issue) is itself a demonstration of Lewis' point. It is harder for the philosophical atheist to explain goodness and orderly beauty to the smallest degree than the theist to explain the strong presence of chaos and evil.

[inkspot]

It is harder for the philosophical atheist to explain goodness and orderly beauty to the smallest degree than the theist to explain the strong presence of chaos and evil.
Yes, I see what you mean. And as I read further in MC, I think Lewis is getting there: good seems original, he says, but bad can only be a corruption of good. God created all good -- bad can create nothing and therefor can only corrupt good to create bad. It's quite interesting.

[Stephosaurous]

I think some people may be looking too far into this.......The fact is, when something dies out, and is 'no more', we lose something beautiful in the world. Every spiecies that dies out means a little less colour and a little less beauty for everyone.... i mean, of course it's a big deal!! I think it's absolutely heart breaking to think of something just not being there anymore. It goes without question that we should try to save every threatened species - i personally can't just sit here and watch whilst whole groups of animals cease to exist. so yeh IT IS A BIG DEAL!!!! i know i'm probably just stating the obvious, but nobody seems to have mentioned this before. :)

[inkspot]

Why is it a big deal, though? They say thousands of species are already extinct, and who misses them? Is it a big deal they are gone because they were beautiful? But "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" they say, so you know, if cockroaches went extinct, I wouldn't cry. For Christians, God gave man the command to take care of the earth, so we have a compelling reason to try to keep it nice ... but for non-believers, what is the difference? Why is it heart-breaking, what gives you the sense that nature is worth preserving if our own lives don't depend on it?

It sounds as if it is a matter of conscience with you, Stepho, but why? Where do you get this sense that all species ought to be preserved? If it's just for their beauty's sake, then who will decide which ones are beautiful ...?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think some people may be looking too far into this.......The fact is, when something dies out, and is 'no more', we lose something beautiful in the world. Every spiecies that dies out means a little less colour and a little less beauty for everyone.... i mean, of course it's a big deal!! I think it's absolutely heart breaking to think of something just not being there anymore. It goes without question that we should try to save every threatened species - i personally can't just sit here and watch whilst whole groups of animals cease to exist. so yeh IT IS A BIG DEAL!!!! i know i'm probably just stating the obvious, but nobody seems to have mentioned this before. :)Well, that's somewhat my point - it's so "obvious" in modern thinking that nobody thinks about it. The argument you present is essentially sentimental. Materialists should not be concerned about things like color and beauty. Inkspot's point about beauty being subjective, and not minding if certain species vanished, is well taken.

For the record, I do agree with you - but I'm an orthodox Christian. If a species passes away, not only do I lament the loss of whatever value that species had in God's plan, but if human negligence is part of the passing (e.g. the dodo birds), I lament the poor stewardship on our part. But materialistic Darwinists deny my presuppositions - so I'm trying to learn just what the basis for their opposition is. Sentiment is pleasant, but it's not a sound scientific or philosophical base.

[Stephosaurous]

Sentiment is pleasant, but it's not a sound scientific or philosophical base.

Really? :eek: My last post was not my entire argument toward extinction. It was merely meant as a reminder to those people who seemed to have lost sight of the real issue. You just carry on with your theories.......

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Really? :eek: My last post was not my entire argument toward extinction. It was merely meant as a reminder to those people who seemed to have lost sight of the real issue. You just carry on with your theories.......I'm not sure which theories you're referring to, but I would be interested in hearing your entire argument. And what is your perception of the real issue?

[Inklet]

I think the standard evolutionist argument would be that because nature is so interconnected, all extinctions pose a possible threat to humanity's survival..

Wow! In one sentence--and my first sentence, mind you--I was able to miss the point of the original question AND conflate the evolutionist's and environmentalist's outlooks. I am the king!

I stayed out of this discussion for a while, hoping that wiser men would take it up and bury my stupidity way back on page one.

It's a good question: "What's the big deal about extinction?" But perhaps this is the wrong forum for a response from a materialist's perspective.

I can't answer it, but I'd like to pose a few questions of my own:

Is man responsible for every extinction?

If the last of a species of carnivore was attacking a human, would we be right to kill the animal?

If protecting an endangered species means sacrificing a person's livelihood, is that okay?


I know that God entrusted us with the care of the earth, but does that mean every species must survive, or that the earth remains in good shape overall?