re: #180 UncleRancher

I’m having a bit of a curiosity attack here. Howcome those most concerned with extinction seem to also be following the evolutionist dogma. One would think it should be the other way round, with evolution naturally eliminating those species no longer fit for the environment and producing new organisms that will more likely survive.

Yeah; you called evolution ‘dogma.’ But evolution ain’t dogma; it is massively supported by, and in fact arose and emerged from a decades-long perusal of, the empirical evidence. Dogma, religious or otherwise, is that which is not supported by the empirical evidence.

And I don’t think that the human race is in danger of extinction in the present environment, unless it (or some members of it) does something malicious or stupid and intentionally or inadvertently extinctifies itself. Maybe you are referring to the fact that smarter (and wealthier) people tend to have fewer kids. They’re still far smarter, on measured tests, than the trailer park bunnies whelping out rug cubs by the dozen. And I would like to see smarter people have more children, but a lot of them are immersed in quite productive, creative, innovative, useful and original work, and are using contraception because they don’t want to bring children into the world that they might neglect for the sake of their work. Dumber folks are just screwing on the couch in front of the TV each evening and regularly popping buns outta the oven.

And btw: the use of the term ‘evolutionist’ labens you as a creationist.