Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 18, 2025, 08:27 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw:[…] . [...] 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.

DAVID: [...] A warm Earth is better for all of us than a cold Earth. We really don't know which temperature balance is best for us. We simply understand what we have experienced and know a 'snowball' Earth is not desired.

The controversy is not about “snowball” versus “warming”! You and Watts have both acknowledged that the planet is getting hotter! The controversy is over the degree of danger that this presents.

DAVID: Your current approach is still panic, still pure propaganda.

How can it be “pure propaganda” if you accept that climate change is real? Do you honestly believe that we should continue -perhaps even increasingly - to burn fossil fuels, cut down the forests, stick to current forms of transport and methods of agriculture which poison the air and the soil through the accumulation of greenhouse gases? Please answer.

DAVID: Slow and steady can happen, but lining up nations is not an easy job.

I’ve explained above precisely why this is not an easy job, but it’s a job which requires action now, to be continued as quickly and smoothly as possible. The fact that it’s difficult does not mean that the danger posed by climate change can be dismissed as panic or propaganda!

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:

DAVID: I use this site to illustrate design. Accept it.

And I have every right to question your arguments and make alternative suggestions. Accept it.

Symbiosis

dhw: […] it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. [...] But the origin of "the conscious cell" remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God.

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.

dhw: 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 are a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or endless ad hoc interventions […]

No response. May I take it that you have finally understood the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

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: […] 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.

dhw: […] 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. […]

DAVID: All cavity nests come from design.

I am suggesting that all nests come from design – i.e. by the birds that build them. Do you believe that your God only gave courses in cavity nest-building, but all other nests were designed by the birds themselves?

Octopus nervous system

DAVID: Not by chance but by design.

dhw: Of course these amazing complexities are designed. […] 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 […]

DAVID: Design takes a working mind.

Agreed. Hence Margulis’s theory of the conscious cell. If nothing else, this would remove the astonishing anomaly of an all-powerful, all-knowing, messy, inefficient God.