Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, January 17, 2025, 12:05 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It seems that you and I (and Watts, judging by the views expressed in the interview) are in agreement, although you are reluctant to say so. Global warming is a fact, and we need to adopt a pragmatic approach in order to restore the balance of nature. The only difference between us is the question of how urgently change is needed. […]

DAVID: The climate alarmists want immediate urgency. Gradual adaptations make the most sense from a monetary standpoint.

It’s not just monetary. The necessary changes will also have colossal social repercussions. Whole industries will have to close down, and households will have to make major adjustments to their ways of living, and so of course there are huge forces opposed to such a revolution. New industries and technologies will spring up, but that will all take time, and sadly none of this means the climate “alarmists” are wrong. Nobody knows for sure how quickly and globally climate change will shatter nature’s balance beyond repair. We are faced with a choice between the devil (environmental catastrophe) and the deep blue sea (social and economic catastrophe), and our only hope of avoiding these is to make the changes as quickly but as smoothly as we can. And the time to start is now.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Theology

Root controls

DAVID: It (the human brain] did not come from chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

dhw: I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness.

I shall now reposition comments for the sake of clarification:

dhw: This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.

DAVID: The use of symbiosis is widespread. A carefully coded DNA with full instructions can produce the appearance of cellular intelligence.

dhw: In other words, you disagree with Margulis and all the other scientists who support her theory, which of course you are free to do!

DAVID: Of course I do. You agree with scientists avoiding God as a source.
And:
DAVID: No one knows! Some of us choose.

After all these years, you still don’t know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. “Maybe it was designed by your God” does not mean God was not the source. Agnostics simply don’t know. The options remain open. Your alternatives to a God-sourced intelligence is a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions, such as the next example:

God and evolution: weaverbirds

QUOTE: "When a bird drapes its nest with snake skin, it isn't just making an interesting home décor choice. For some birds, it keeps predators at bay.”

DAVID: this covers weaverbirds as part of a generalized 'cavity nest' birds group, and adds a interesting fact. Obviously a learned behavior.

dhw: For the life of me, I cannot see why you have headed this “God and evolution”. By “learned behavior”, I assume you mean that this was a discovery made by the birds themselves, and when it proved successful, it was taken up by other birds and passed on from generation to generation. Where does God come into it?

DAVID: The nests are not learned behavior as previously discussed. The snake skin is.

The article was on the use of snake skin. I have no idea why you think these birds are intelligent enough to design their own means of protection but have to have lessons from God on how to build their own homes. Do you think God also taught other birds to make their nests, or is it only weaverbirds that he singled out for special tuition?

Octopus nervous system

QUOTE: "While octopuses and squid diverged from each other more than 270 million years ago, the commonalities in how they control parts of their appendages with suckers -- and differences in the parts that don't -- show how evolution always manages to find the best solution."

DAVID: amazing muscle/nerve complexity fitted exactly to need. Think of the thousands of mutations needed. Not by chance but by design.

Of course these amazing complexities are designed. The above and many of your magnificent “Nature’s Wonders” are one vast demonstration of how cell communities adapt to or exploit different conditions. Possible explanation: the individual intelligences of the cells/cell communities themselves – that is to say, of those cells/cell communities that are able to make the necessary changes. Many cells can’t do so, which explains extinction – a major problem for your anthropocentric view of evolution, which makes you label your all-powerful, all-knowing God as “messy” and “inefficient”.