More than 99% of all the species which have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. Sometimes this resulted from sudden environmental changes. For example extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have resulted from abrupt changes caused by collision of a comet with the earth. In most cases extinction was probably the result of the blind forces of Darwinian natural selection. The effects of overpopulation causing a detrimental environmental change leading the extinction.
Until now extinction may have been the inevitable fate for any species. However, human evolution has produced a species with a brain capable of planning and forethought.
In some ways this hasn’t helped – we have just been more efficient a changing our environment in a self-destructive way. But our species does have the capacity to look ahead and comprehend future problems. This is possible because of our scientific knowledge and our developed moral/ethical principles.
For the first time we have a species which just might be capable of overcoming the blind forces of Darwinian natural selection and mitigate its behaviour so as to prevent its own extinction.
But it is a close thing. So many of our species are denial. These individuals don’t want to admit possible future problems. They want to persist in activities based only on their own short-term interests. In short – they want to continue submitting to Darwinian natural selection.
The climate change deniers behave this way. They will look for any argument to justify their refusal to consider the consequences of the unthinking behaviour of our species.
I have already commented on the strange alliance between proponents of intelligent design/creationism (evolution deniers) and climate change deniers (see Intelligent design/creationism and climate change). Bill Dembski’s blog Uncommon Descent continues to post opinion pieces aimed at discrediting the science of climate change (see, for example The REAL Inconvenient Truth). They argue that “global warming is a net GOOD thing…. If the planet wasn’t warming we’d want it to be warming. If CO2 levels weren’t growing we’d want them to be growing.”
These creationists are behaving in a blind Darwinian fashion. They prefer to submit to the blind forces of natural selection. Presumably this is results from their rejection of the scientific knowledge which would enable then to look ahead and foresee possible future problems our species faces. It may also result from a warped moral/ethical sense which enables them to be blind to the responsibility we all have for our future.
Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
The real climate change swindle?
Scientific dissent from . . . science?
Intelligent design and depression
A respectable man with a dangerous theory
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?
Dissenters from Darwinism in context
Intelligent design and the threat to Christianity
Religious opposition to “intelligent design”
Intelligent design and scientific method
Intelligent design/creationism I: What is scientific knowledge?