Last week, the New York Times chortled that Gov. Parnell is continuing former Gov. Palin’s efforts to remove polar bears from the “endangered” species list, after they were illegally put there in 2008 by an overzealous and undersmart Federal Fish and Wildlife Service.  Leaving aside the fact that this policy 1-is illegal, 2-is likely to be disastrous for Alaska’s already fragile economy, and 3-has no discernible benefit (even liberal scientists like Bjorn Lomborg and John Cristy have said that most polar bear populations are thriving), I have a more fundamental question: if 1-3 apply to polar bears, why should they not apply, in one form or another, to any “endangered” species?

Do you believe in evolution?  I don’t, but unlike our latte-sipping Prius-driving friends, I don’t assume myself to be so smart that I can know exactly how God effected Creation.

Look, one of two things is true.  One, Darwin was right (unlikely), and we are all mutants.  Two, Darwin was wrong (more likely).  Let’s start with Two.

If Two is right, then there is certainly no need to worry about “endangered” species; species will come and go exactly as they were meant to do, and even if we tried we couldn’t affect their place or purpose on this Earth.  If One is right, I believe we have a far more serious problem on our hands.

Let’s suppose for the moment that Darwinism is correct.  Then, just as Americans were selected to dominate the world’s economy and diplomacy, species are selected to die or thrive based on their competence.  Keeping species that were unable to survive alive then subverts evolution, and amounts to a “bailout” of species that would never be able to make it on their own.  What we end up with are zombie species, capable only of surviving in zoos.  OK, no problem, you say, my daughter loves looking at the polar bears in the zoo.  However, more dangerous still, is that by propping up old species, we are preventing new, more evolutionarily efficient species from popping up.  Indeed, by insisting on a static world and shutting down evolution, we may even be holding ourselves as Humans back, as without the interaction with new, innovative species, we have no evolutionary incentive to evolve ourselves.

“Endangered” species are thus lose/lose.  Occasionally, it is harmless fun.  More often, however, in the case of the “endangered” Alaskan polar bears, liberals are willing to absorb virtually any amount of lost economic growth in order to protect even one more precious animal.  Yet another instance of Al Gore and his ilk solving a problem that no one was aware of but them.