"The planet does not need more successful people"

[antigone382]

23. It has nothing to do with science-phobia.

Saying that Dr. Orr overestimates the importance of human beings, and that our existence does not really matter, is not a scientific statement. Determination of how "important" something is, or how much it "matters," are value judgments, and science does not ascribe value or meaning to things. You are free to say that in the scheme of things, the human race means little, just as the OP is free to say that the human race is worth working to save.

You could make a sound argument based on the best scientific data we have available to support either of those positions, and you could have an interesting and mutually respectful discussion on this subject if you chose. But neither of those perspectives reflect purely scientific thought. A conversation about the relative worth of human beings fundamentally involves value judgments, and if you think that science is in the business of assigning worth to the things it observes then you profoundly misunderstand the purpose of scientific inquiry, even as you claim to promote it.

So if your understanding of science, and your own sense of values and priorities, leads you to the conclusion that human life does not matter, that's fine. But it's a personal judgment, not an expression of scientifically understood truth--and not a superior perspective to those who, for whatever reason, feel that human life does have intrinsic value.