Species do not evolve to follow any purpose. As would say Johnny: “they evolve … because they change.”

We know that giraffes did not develop a long neck to manage to graze the top of trees, nor that insects did not begin making pheromones with the aim of attracting a sexual partner. These functions appeared and turned out superior in comparison with previous alternatives; this allowed the species to survive better, while many others went extinct. Over the course of the generations, comparative advantages continue and strengthen while debilities ease and eventually disappear. No perfect species results from such a heuristic process, it shows simply the best, or the least bad, adaptation to its environment.

I claim that neither the Greens nor the religions really like that.

For the religions, especially for the monotheisms, such reaction is rather understandable because the intention of their God is put in question. Without opposing directly the theories of evolution (except the creationists) they have difficulty in accepting the randomness which would be at the origin of the changes. We shall not discuss this metaphysical problem because it is in essence indisputable.

As for the Greens they are going to protest and to dispute my assertion because in great majority they accept the Darwinian Theory. But they are at lost between reckoning so far unfalsified scientific theories and their desires to freeze nature in an optimal state according to their views. This “human teleology” is moreover the fundamental tenet of their trade.

Let us take two examples: for the Greens any reduction of the habitat of a species is an inconsolable loss, thus it is not only necessary to establish conservation zones but to oppose any human activity which could restrict the spread and the depth of biodiversity. One square meter of intensely cultivated field or of concrete slab is a grave infringement to the natural balance to which we must aspire. Any change of the climate is unbearable, especially if caused by industrial flatulencies, while it would be wonderful if it was worse, but due to natural causes. In both cases it is necessary to restore at all costs a situation which would have been degraded by us, humans. There is a final cause (telos) which must be respected, that of a nature being good and well balanced by itself. This kind of position is just as irrefutable as the religious revelation; except irony, nothing can be done against it.

The promises of the religions concern the afterlife, in the name of which a morality of this world is decreed. The apostates are not popular there, maybe tolerated but sometimes sentenced to death if they persist.

The Greens are even more demanding: the paradise has to be made here and now, even if they are incapable to specify this nature to which they aspire; which climate, which degree of biodiversity do they want? Rapidly, their morality becomes totalitarian because not to pander to them would be an immediate crime against Nature, against humanity, and against the next generations of Homo sapiens sapiens or of Bacillus anthracis, without possible redemption.

As for me, knowing that I do not know much and guarding me to prescribe useless or harmful treatments, I prefer to marvel at nature such as she is rather than such as she should be in the name of an ideology of crazies.