Why should we save the polar bears?

At least, that’s what Darwinists tell us. In fact, if you think hard about it, animal conservation should actually be anathema to the Darwin-loving liberal agenda, which holds up evolution – and not altruistic compassion – as the final word on the survival of a species.

Sure, it’s possible that we’re crowding out the polar bear – but aren’t we animals, too? And don’t animals sometimes crowd each other out? Isn’t it entirely possible that the polar bear is simply going extinct, like countless species before it?

The crass and sometimes violent coming and going of species proves evolution’s central logic. So why, then, do polar bear activists insist that another species – that would be us – tamper with Darwin’s grand design and swoop in to save an animal that simply wasn’t fit enough to make it in the cutthroat world of biological survival?