Action & Reaction - February 2001|
Re: Pollution: Friend or Foe?
We received this e-mail in response to last month’s feature article in which we wondered how one could be both an evolutionist and an environmentalist because environmental pressure supposedly accelerates evolution.
Subject: Inaccuracies in your site
Date: 29 Jan 2001
You state at that evolutionists believe that "Evolution is the process by which inferior species are replaced by superior species". This is utterly incorrect. Evolutionary theory states that species evolve to fill available ecological niches, not that species evolve to become "superior" (what is your definition of 'superior' anyway?). In answer to your question "We don’t know any evolutionists who come to this conclusion, however. Why not? We’re glad you asked." - because your premises are flawed, thus your conclusion does not follow, glad you asked. Pollution acts to decrease the number of available ecological niches, thus reducing biodiversity.
Chris (evolutionist environmentalist)
Funny he should ask about our definition of “superior”. That is the subject of an essay we are planning to run in a month or two. So, we will not address that issue right now.
We put his last sentence in red because that is the crux of the problem. If it is true, then the asteroid that supposedly caused the extinction of the dinosaurs must have decreased the number of ecological niches. It would have reduced biodiversity. But evolutionists tell us that the catastrophe that eliminated the dinosaurs provided an opportunity for an increase in the biodiversity of mammals.
It really seems to us that you can’t have it both ways.