@PerseusWizardry's banner p

PerseusWizardry


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 12 users  
joined 2022 November 07 23:53:04 UTC

				

User ID: 1815

PerseusWizardry


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 12 users   joined 2022 November 07 23:53:04 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1815

Even on utilitarianism, meritocracy is useful. The erosion of meritocratic norms and increasing resentment may cause more harm in the long run than it benefits a few black Harvard students.

What other issues might there be?

I didn’t intend this as an argument for Christianity and am not myself religious. Obviously the probability of Christianity is greater given deism, though, and I guess fine tuning suggests a god with an interest in our lives. But it’s indifferent with respect to Christianity vs some other religion like Islam, and I don’t think it’s strong enough evidence that it implies that “one of the world religions must be true.” A Christian would have to use it in a cumulative case for their religion that also invoked some more specifically pro-Christianity evidence. Supposedly they have done so in the form of historical support for the resurrection of Jesus, but I am very skeptical.

From the Wikipedia article on abiogenesis:

“The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process“

That sounds very complicated. Many different parts are involved with many different mechanisms, which had to be in place at the right time in many different stages.

Why do you think the multiverse exists?

I’m not a Christian, just weakly committed to deism based on the fine tuning argument. (Or at least I think the probability of deism is greater than maybe 30%, maybe greater than 50%)

But anyway, yes, if I think something is evidence in favor of something, then its absence is evidence against it.

large-scale forces would be disrupting any intermediate stages of genesis,

Why wouldn’t forces work to disrupt intermediate stages of the genesis of a microorganism? You don’t think it would happen spontaneously, in one step, do you?

and it needs more diverse environments to assemble its different parts

A self-replicating molecular organism has very different parts assembled in a very specific way. Why wouldn’t it need a diverse range of assembly environments, if a fighter jet would?

I do believe in evolution, but my understanding is that evolution is only intended as an explanation of the diversity of life but not its initial origins. For that, the abiogenesis story is the only serious naturalistic candidate of which I’m aware, aside from the “panspermia” idea that life evolved somewhere more favorable to life and traveled to the earth in a stable vehicle.

Thank you for this thoughtful point-by-point response. It's exactly what I was looking for. About 2: even if these effects are real in humans, who is to say the dosages we are exposed to make a difference? I take your point that the "suddenness" and recency of the increase in transgender ID is not consistent with the endocrine disruptor hypothesis.