Debate: Should people stop all efforts to save endangered species?
Side: No, continue saving them.

Evolution and Creation are both opinions of a beginning.A scientific theory is a well-tested explanatory model that accounts for observed phenomena and accurately makes predictions. It is not an opinion. Evolutionary theory is, also, not about "a beginning". It is specifically about how populations of life descend with modification. Whereas creationism, on the other hand, is about "a beginning".Neither of which can be proven.What an absurd point. Science doesn't deal with proofs. That's left to math and liquor. Science deals with explanations, how we account for the phenomena we observe in nature. I used to study lentiviral resistance mechanisms in t-lymphocyte and macrophage lineages. If someone came to me and asked me to explain how HIV infects, cleaves and attaches its DNA to our immune cells and then remains dormant, I wouldn't be giving them my opinion. I would be giving them an explanation of observed occurrences in human immune systems. And that's not nit-picking. Science explains. It does not prove.Don't try to give one more validity over the other.The Onion did an interesting piece on "opposing views". It was titled "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory". The article was, of course, a satire of the evolution/creation "debate". Creationism is an untested hypothesis. It necessarily can't be tested. But more importantly, it adds absolutely nothing to what we know about the world around us. And it isn't productive. I could just as easily propose that a divine Honey Bun created all of life and have exactly the same amount of evidence as the creation hypothesis. Our understanding of evolution on the other hand has propelled and advanced medicine, created one of the fastest growing industries in Bioinformatics, has influenced engineering design techniques. Evolutionary theory is productive. It works. I'm not going to pretend even for one second that Creationism and the theory of evolution stand on similar ground. One is a fairy tale and the other is observed and explained with productive results within and outside of science.People you call ignorant write the Wikipedia and dictionaries that these terms can be found in.Who cares what some random person on Wikipedia wrote? Wikipedia isn't authoritative. The term is steadfastly held and has been made popular by creationists and their dimwitted ilk. Things maybe "misnomers" in the beginning, but wide usage actually earn them a place in books and acceptance in society.Acceptance and appropriate use are two different things. That it is a colloquially popular term is irrelevant to whether it is the correct use of the word or even applicable to the object of consideration. One cannot be an Evolutionist because neither Evolutionary theory nor the fact of evolution are "isms". Calling someone an "evolutionist" is like calling someone a Gravitationist because they accept the theory of gravity. It's stupid.I'm just gonna go ahead and pick on the pandas again, they're just pathetic animals that are so defenseless and slow moving and ridiculously reluctant when it comes to reproduction that basically leads them to their current fate in the hands of humansHumans play a major role in the decline of pandas not their inability to survive in their environment.There are some 3 species of plant or animal that become extinct every hour, we're not affected. You're very myopic.You assert that what we do may be unnatural and that we're at fault for putting some species on the endangered list, but you forget that we are a natural species of this natural world and what we do is basically what we are naturally capable of doing!An outcome resulting from the ability of an organism to engineer doesn't mean that the outcome itself is natural. Plastic isn't natural. Circles aren't natural. Numbers aren't natural. Synthesized chemicals aren't natural. If a stronger species kill off a weaker species, it's always the stronger species fault: there's no moral obligation in nature! Nature doesn't care."Nature" is term used to identify a non-thinking, robust ecological system. Of course it doesn't care. It can't. But so what? We do. And we have a vested interest in caring about various ecological systems because they impact human survival in the short and long term.