What uncomfortable truth is being conveniently explained away by the acceptance that the notion of making nature more pristine is anything other than an act of human arrogance based around the construct that we can right the past environmental sins by altering nature back to a static time based on our own arrival here on this continent. What uncomfortable truth do you speak of?
Nature is always in motion. It has to be. That means change is part of that.
The laws of nature that govern balance are his laws, not ours.
The past sins of not valuing enough what we currently have enough to protect it and the belief that we are justified in deciding what should live where on this planet are what got us here. Both of these sins are still prevalent in the line of thinking that you project.
Everything we touch and alter is made unnatural by definition. It's not that I don't value the brook trout or even believe in restoration in some cases it's that I am growing ever more conscious about human interference in the natural order of things.
You mention God runs nature. Nature has no say.
In the movie do you remember the scene where he has the boys along the river and he holds up a rock. He says,"Over a half a billion years ago rain fell on mud and mud became rock, under the rocks are the words and if you listen all your life you may hear them".
What words do you think you might hear.
I believe nature is an intelligent thing. Not understanding or hearing the words does not impugn that nature is not intelligent, it speaks to our communication skills or lack of time spent listening.
If nature has no say then science becomes the gospel of a new religion. History should have taught us that blindly following science is a dangerous thing.
Maybe I see that a different gospel. I feel a connection to his creation through a lifetime of connectedness. I have lived my life prioritizing that connectedness. He speaks to me through his creation and its humbling.
There has been no pollution that has destroyed more than human arrogance. I see no greater example today of human arrogance than science deciding for nature itself what should live where on this planet based on our own existence and arrival here on this continent. That is all us. There is no God in that just us and we are flawed. We are God in that instance. The Laws that govern existence apply to us. Those laws are his.
I'm saying the term "human construct" has been over used to the point of being meaningless.
Especially in the way your friend used it.
The fact remains the creation was pristine directly after creation. To say otherwise is to deny the power of God, his written testimony and assume he makes mistakes.
What got us here is sin, through the disobedience of his commands and word.
Nothing more.
No Sir, I value you what I have. It is not my line of thinking that I don't, nor is it my line of thinking to decide what should live or die. I am not projecting that line of thinking at all. To the contrary, that is exactly what Iam saying. At no point what so ever have I called for the eradication of anything, but rather the restoration, where feasible, of a species dieing out.
As far as these words under the rock from what ever movie, I suspect I would hear nothing. Nature is not an intelligent being with a soul. It is a creation for us, for his glory. Paganism does not mix well with the written Word.
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
The Word tells us that, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
We do not hear the testimony of God through nature, we see it. We hear the testimony through the written Word and through the gospel of Christ.
It also tells us:
It's one of the first things God asked of us in
Genesis 2:15, after the creation of mankind. Likewise, there are examples in Jeremiah 2:7 and Deuteronomy 11:12 of how God looks over his creation. We are stewards of the earth, and we have a responsibility to care for it.
This clearly, to me, would include brook trout restoration where feasible. If we are to care for the Earth and all God's creations, it does not mean we give up on those critters, nor am I saying you have.
It's great the creation "speaks" to you about the divine creator, but I caution with that "connectedness" or unity you feel through it. Not all things in creation are good. I would advise to turn to his written word to find his commands and will. He speaks to us through his Son.
The laws that govern nature are his, along with his laws that govern us.
Fisher of men over fish. The gospel of Christ is bigger than any fisheries management perspective you may desire. Either we do things according to his Word, in accordance with his will and for his glory or we are just doing it for ourselves.
How will this lead people to Christ and how can I use it for that purpose, is what you should be asking.
I'll leave you with that thought.
I wish you well.