Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, January 27, 2025, 09:40 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

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 (dhw’s bold)

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Assuming a God in action, we must accept the history of evolution as it presents itself.

Agreed.

DAVID: Why God did it this way is totally unknown and cannot deny my theory on those grounds.

The fact that God’s purpose, methods and nature are unknown should make you open to different theories, but you illogically ridicule your God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and yet messy and inefficient. You also complain illogically that alternative theories “humanize” him, although you believe he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you even list some of them (enjoyment, interest, desire for a relationship, recognition, worship).

dhw: You cannot accept the possibility that maybe one or both parts of your theory might be wrong.

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

We're not dealing with alternative versions of evolution’s history, but with the history we know. Humans are the latest products. How does that explain your God’s ridiculously inefficient use of evolution?

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.

DAVID: 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!

You praise your loggers and would like to ask Brazil to follow suit, but now you’re happy to support some of the worst polluters in the world for NOT taking the necessary steps to restore Nature’s balance! Are you proud of Trump for following their example instead of that of his own loggers?

DAVID: Proper new research on reforestation:

"The team of scientists[…] found that reforestation will benefit many species both locally, by increasing habitat, and globally, by mitigating climate change.

DAVID: proper research at proper speed.

dhw: Yes indeed.[…] . 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”.

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

I don’t read The Guardian, and please stop pretending that all the scientists who disagree with you are stupid or ignorant or corrupt, and haven’t studied the nitty-gritty.

How fungi help plants:
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2025/mycorrhizal-fungi-he...

The article describes how certain fungi can be helpful, but may also be damaging.

DAVID: I doubt the Guardian would give this article big headlines. However, science is quietly aware of the current agricultural problems, as this article demonstrates. But among climatologists there is great disagreement as to the accuracy of the climate models predictive ability. There are so many factors which must be included.

I’m glad you are aware that scientists are aware of current agricultural problems, just as they are aware of damage caused by fossil fuels, current means of transport, and deforestation. Yes, there are disagreements about the future, but why would you personally encourage the Brazilians, Chinese and Indians to carry on ruining their environment? Why do you prefer “as slowly as you like” to “as quickly as possible”?