Should Elephants and Lions Be Reintroduced to North America?
Believe it or not, some scientists think large mammals that existed in North America in prehistoric times should be brought back. This is called “rewilding,” in hopes of healing some of the ecological disruption caused when early humans “played a significant role in their demise 13,000 years ago.” A dozen scientists provided a detailed proposal for the restoration of North American megafauna, reported EurekAlert.
Starting with giant tortoises and wild horses, then moving toward lions and elephants, the authors provide a number of case studies for “Pleistocene Rewilding” and argue such introductions would contribute biological, economic, and cultural benefits to North America. The authors acknowledge that there are substantial risks and challenges; the risks of inaction may be even greater, however, including the continued global loss of megafauna.
Those risks and challenges were recently highlighted in a news story on Fox News. In Kenya last Monday, a British tourist was trampled by an elephant on his honeymoon. (That was the man’s honeymoon, incidentally, not the elephant’s.)
Let’s think this through in evolutionary terms. After all, evolutionists must be consistent. Since evolution is what evolution does, the early human inhabitants of North America merely showed their fitness after the emergence of evolutionary innovations such as spears and knives. Since many species have gone extinct, why should we weep over the loss of a few more? And what would be the impact on today’s native megafauna (mountain lions, bison, bears) with the introduction of new, larger competitors?
If the insinuation in this story is that our forebears did something bad by killing them off, and therefore we need to perform penance to rectify past mistakes, then the argument switches to moral philosophy. Since there are no morals in Darwinism, this is really a synonym for theology. Let the evolutionists repent and be converted, then we could have an interesting discussion on stewardship of the environment – but not until. After all, evolutionists must be consistent.
But then, why must evolutionists be consistent? Consistency is a virtue, and there are no virtues in Darwinism. In their world view, they could play any intellectual game to get what they desire. The only acceptable compromise in a pluralistic society would be to give them their own territory for their experiments. Put the Darwinists in the same pen with the lions and elephants, and let them play survival of the fittest to their heart’s content.