Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 26, 2025, 17:23 (4 days ago) @ dhw

Theology

God and evolution: weaverbirds

DAVID: You have combined three separate issues. Yes, God is the overall designer, but individual examples have different reasons and causes as approached by God. I can only guess at God's reasons in individual examples. That I think His use of evolution was an inefficient choice is a third separate issue. God had His reasons that we do not know.

Here the individual example is the weaverbird’s nest, which your God designed “for His own reasons”. Now here are your three separate issues: 1) God is the overall designer – a premise which I am accepting because we are discussing his possible purposes, methods and nature, not his existence. 2) You believe his only purpose was H. sapiens plus our food, and he designed every individual species. 3) 99% of the individual species were irrelevant to this purpose and had to be culled, and you can’t think of any reason why he would use such a method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him.

Assuming a God in action, we must accept the history of evolution as it presents itself. Why God did it this way is totally unknown and cannot deny my theory on those grounds.

and so you conclude that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is messy and inefficient. You cannot accept the possibility that maybe one or both parts of your theory might be wrong.

What is an alternative to humans? I don't see one, do you?

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: We cannot tell Brazil what to do, but ask for consideration.

dhw: You are so right. That is why it is essential to get all countries to agree to cooperate – which was the purpose of the Paris Agreement. It is also right that we tailor our measures to avoid social and economic catastrophes, but that does not alter the argument that these measures should be implemented as quickly as possible and not as slowly as possible.

DAVID: The UK policies will lead you to freeze in the dark.

dhw: Any government that went that far would be voted out of office (in a democracy) or threatened with revolution (in a dictatorship). But Trump’s current policies (“Drill, baby, drill” and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement)) will now make it virtually impossible to get international consensus to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and on other factors that are already causing so much damage.

But it will improve the USA economy, and as a citizen, I approve. China and India are not following the proposed Paris rules while still joined to the agreement!

DAVID: Proper new research on reforestation:

"The team of scientists—which also included Jonathan Levine, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton, and Susan C. Cook-Patton, Ph.D., Senior Forest Restoration Scientist at The Nature Conservancy found that reforestation will benefit many species both locally, by increasing habitat, and globally, by mitigating climate change. These include many iconic forest species from spotted salamanders and red-bellied woodpeckers to jaguars."

DAVID: proper research at proper speed.

dhw: Yes indeed. The research needs to be done now and the conclusions implemented as quickly as pragmatically possible, in the manner exemplified by your NA loggers. I am delighted that you have agreed with this team of scientists (note the bold), and trust that from now on you will stop accusing such experts of panic or ignorance or dishonesty, and will reverse your earlier view: “What is wrong with slowly changing?? The apocalypse is not here, while you think it is alarmistically”.

You are still an alarmist. The Guardian spews alarmism and your life does not allow time to study the nitty-gritty.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dhw: Thank you for the informative articles on fever and early hominins. No need for any comment from me, except to congratulate you on your own insights into the role of fever when you were a practising physician!

Thank you. A very obvious view.