Brook Trout Extinction — Why Care?

The noun brook is generally understood to mean a small stream or creek, but the verb is not in common usage nowadays. It is basically a synonym for tolerate. The fish known as the brook trout do not brook warm water very well.

Supposedly, survival of the fittest is a law of science. Brown trout in that small Jabez Branch tributary are doing fine, and don't care about the brook trout. Why should we? Besides, brook trout as a whole are not going extinct.

Brook trout in Jabez Branch are going extinct. If evolutionists intervene, they are inconsistent with their survival of the fittest worldview.
Flicker / James St. John (CC BY 2.0)
Before people start carping about my seemingly hard heart, it should be known that a view of let it die because of survival of the fittest and pleasing the puny evolution god Natural Selection is consistent with Darwinism. This happens on a large scale (such as eugenics) as well as a "law" of nature. If evolutionists want $1 million USD spent on that area for those fish, they are being inconsistent with their own worldview! Trying to help them is entirely consistent with a creation worldview, however.
Should a freshwater stream be restored to make it habitable for a failing fish population such as brook trout? It makes sense that creationists proactively care about biodiversity and environmental stewardship, but why should evolutionists care? These real-world questions are illustrated by Maryland’s Jabez Branch, a tributary of the Severn River in Maryland. Jabez Branch is the only stream in the state’s Coastal Plain that is—or maybe was—home to brook trout.

Jabez Branch’s critical problem that prevents it from serving as a critical habitat for brook trout is its temperature. When stream water gets too hot, it’s a hostile habitat for brook trout.

You can read the rest of the article at "Should Creationists Brook Loss of a Trout?"

Comments