ChatGPT's take on intelligent design creationism.

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic within both
scientific and philosophical circles. While proponents of ID argue that
certain features of the universe and living organisms are best explained by
an intelligent cause rather than natural processes, the scientific consensus
firmly rejects ID as a valid scientific theory.
The status of Intelligent Design in academic and scientific communities
varies. In many scientific circles, it is considered a form of creationism
rather than a scientific theory because it invokes a supernatural or divine
entity as the cause of certain phenomena. As such, it is not typically
included in mainstream scientific discussions or research.
However, proponents of Intelligent Design continue to advocate for its
inclusion in academic curricula, particularly in the context of science
education. There have been legal battles over the teaching of Intelligent
Design in public schools, with courts consistently ruling that it violates
the principle of separation of church and state.
Overall, while Intelligent Design remains a topic of debate and interest for
some, particularly within certain religious or philosophical communities, it
has not gained widespread acceptance within the scientific community as a
You
What is the reason for Casey Luskin's claims for not teaching intelligent
design in Virginia public schools? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, who has been associated with the Discovery Institute, a
proponent organization of Intelligent Design, has likely made claims against
teaching Intelligent Design in Virginia public schools for a couple of
reasons.
Firstly, there is a legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding
the teaching of creationism in public schools. In 1987, the Supreme Court
ruled in the case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism alongside
evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing or endorsing any
particular religion. Since Intelligent Design is often viewed as a form of
creationism, advocating for its inclusion in public school science curricula
could face legal challenges based on this precedent.
Secondly, there is a consensus within the scientific community that
Intelligent Design lacks empirical evidence and is not a valid scientific
theory. Thus, teaching it alongside evolution in science classes could
potentially confuse students about the nature of scientific inquiry and
misrepresent the scientific understanding of the origins and development of
life on Earth.
Luskin's claims may reflect an acknowledgment of these legal and scientific
realities, advocating instead for approaches such as teaching the controversy
or academic freedom laws, which allow teachers to discuss scientific topics
without mandating the inclusion of Intelligent Design or other non-scientific
ChatGPT then apes the Discovery Institute propaganda, but doesn't go into the
reason for Luskin to advocate teaching intelligent design. ChatGPT also does
not include the Discovery Institute's original mission involving the ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Post by RonO
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of
the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence
can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements,
including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and
those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new
developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts
about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the
supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds
conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after
You
Why has Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute advocated teaching
intelligent design in the past? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, as a representative of the Discovery Institute, has advocated
for teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in the past for several reasons,
Promotion of Academic Freedom: The Discovery Institute has been a proponent
of academic freedom, arguing that educators should have the right to discuss
scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, including Intelligent Design,
in science classrooms. They contend that stifling discussion on these topics
amounts to censorship and limits critical thinking.
Teaching the Controversy: The Discovery Institute has advocated for a "teach
the controversy" approach, suggesting that students should be exposed to
different perspectives on the origins of life, including evolutionary biology
and Intelligent Design. They argue that such an approach promotes critical
thinking and encourages students to evaluate evidence and arguments from
multiple viewpoints.
Critique of Darwinian Evolution: ID proponents, including the Discovery
Institute, assert that Darwinian evolution has limitations and gaps that
should be openly discussed in science education. They believe that by
teaching Intelligent Design, students can better understand these alleged
shortcomings and engage in a more comprehensive evaluation of evolutionary
theory.
Support for a Design Hypothesis: Proponents of Intelligent Design, including
Luskin, argue that certain features of the natural world exhibit complex,
specified information that cannot be fully explained by naturalistic
processes alone. They contend that such features are better explained by the
action of an intelligent designer, and therefore, ID should be considered a
legitimate scientific theory worthy of discussion in educational settings.
It's important to note that while Luskin and the Discovery Institute advocate
for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science education, this stance has
been met with significant opposition from the scientific community and many
educational institutions, which generally regard Intelligent Design as a form
ChatGPT seems to have a hard time differentiating lies and deception from
honest discourse. It is biased toward misrepresenting dishonest
organizations like the Discovery Institute as being somehow legitimate.
The promotion of academic freedom was only initiated to further their
original mission when ID failed to measure up as science. This occurred
years before ID lost in Federal court. When the ID perps were faced with
putting up or shutting up by teaching intelligent design in the public
schools they refused to provide any ID science to teach and instead started
pushing their obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes. They
continued to push teaching intelligent design in the public schools in order
to maintain their Wedge strategy, but no one is ever going to get the ID
science that never existed.
It should be noted that the Thomas More lawyer that was defending the Dover
creationist rubes described the bait and switch that the Discovery Institute
had been running for the previous 3 years as a "strategy". He noted that
they would sell intelligent design, but then backoff and not deliver, and
instead the rubes got a "compromise".
You
When creationists want to teach intelligent design in the public schools why
does the Discovery Institute run the bait and switch and not give them the ID
science that they claim can be taught in the public schools, and instead only
give them an obfuscation and denial switch scam? ChatGPT The relationship
between the Discovery Institute and creationist groups regarding the teaching
of Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools can be complex and multifaceted.
However, it's essential to note that the Discovery Institute itself has
denied being a creationist organization and instead presents Intelligent
Design as a scientific theory distinct from traditional creationism.
Here are a few potential reasons why there might be frustration or perceived
Legal Strategy: The Discovery Institute may adopt a cautious legal strategy
regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. Due to legal precedents, such
as the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard, which prohibits the
teaching of creationism in public schools, advocating explicitly for ID could
invite legal challenges. Therefore, the Institute might seek to avoid
explicit association with creationism to navigate these legal obstacles.
Scientific Validity: While creationist groups may view ID as aligned with
their beliefs, the Discovery Institute often emphasizes the scientific
aspects of Intelligent Design. They aim to position ID as a legitimate
scientific theory, separate from religious or creationist viewpoints. This
approach might lead to differences in expectations between creationist
groups, who may prioritize religious teachings, and the Discovery Institute,
which emphasizes scientific inquiry.
Strategic Differences: Creationist groups and the Discovery Institute may
have differing strategic priorities. The Institute might prioritize
presenting ID in a way that appeals to mainstream scientific and educational
communities, seeking broader acceptance and influence. Creationist groups, on
the other hand, may prioritize promoting their specific religious beliefs,
which could lead to differences in messaging and tactics.
Public Perception: The Discovery Institute might be concerned about public
perception and the potential for backlash. Presenting ID solely as a
religious belief rather than a scientific theory could reinforce the
perception of ID as creationism in disguise, which could undermine its
acceptance within scientific and educational circles.
In summary, differences in legal strategy, scientific approach, strategic
priorities, and public perception may contribute to perceived discrepancies
between creationist groups and the Discovery Institute regarding the teaching
It also should be noted that ChatGPT takes the ID perps at their word, and
doesn't consider what the ID perps actually do. They may claim that they are
only interested in the science, but no ID science has ever been accomplished.
All that they have ever done is obfuscate and deny the existing science.
Phillip Johnson had teaching ID in the public schools as part of the Wedge
strategy to accomplish the ID perp's original creationist mission. The ID
perps might claim that their arguments are not God-of-the-gaps, but their Top
Six best evidences for ID are the same god-of-the-gaps arguments that the
scientific creationists would use. The Big Bang, fine tuning, the origin of
life, the flagellum as a designed machine, the Cambrian explosion, and gaps
in the fossil record were all used by the scientific creationists as issues
that had gaps in our scientific knowledge that some god was supposed to be
able to fill.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------

It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.

Sometimes those _reasonable_ answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.

The program can be manipulated by a a skilled human. See, for example:

In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

erik simpson

2024-05-20 18:03:49 UTC

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those _reasonable_ answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT is a word processor, not an idea processor, but sometimes it
seems that its paraphrasing of somebody's work turns out clearer than
the original. It's still a pernicious piece of software.

Dexter

2024-05-21 01:05:32 UTC

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic within
both scientific and philosophical circles. While proponents of ID argue
that certain features of the universe and living organisms are best
explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes, the
scientific consensus firmly rejects ID as a valid scientific theory.
The status of Intelligent Design in academic and scientific communities
varies. In many scientific circles, it is considered a form of creationism
rather than a scientific theory because it invokes a supernatural or
divine entity as the cause of certain phenomena. As such, it is not
typically included in mainstream scientific discussions or research.
However, proponents of Intelligent Design continue to advocate for its
inclusion in academic curricula, particularly in the context of science
education. There have been legal battles over the teaching of Intelligent
Design in public schools, with courts consistently ruling that it violates
the principle of separation of church and state.
Overall, while Intelligent Design remains a topic of debate and interest
for some, particularly within certain religious or philosophical
communities, it has not gained widespread acceptance within the
You
What is the reason for Casey Luskin's claims for not teaching intelligent
design in Virginia public schools? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, who has been associated with the Discovery Institute, a
proponent organization of Intelligent Design, has likely made claims
against teaching Intelligent Design in Virginia public schools for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, there is a legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools. In 1987, the
Supreme Court ruled in the case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching
creationism alongside evolution in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the
government from establishing or endorsing any particular religion. Since
Intelligent Design is often viewed as a form of creationism, advocating
for its inclusion in public school science curricula could face legal
challenges based on this precedent.
Secondly, there is a consensus within the scientific community that
Intelligent Design lacks empirical evidence and is not a valid scientific
theory. Thus, teaching it alongside evolution in science classes could
potentially confuse students about the nature of scientific inquiry and
misrepresent the scientific understanding of the origins and development
of life on Earth.
Luskin's claims may reflect an acknowledgment of these legal and
scientific realities, advocating instead for approaches such as teaching
the controversy or academic freedom laws, which allow teachers to discuss
scientific topics without mandating the inclusion of Intelligent Design
ChatGPT then apes the Discovery Institute propaganda, but doesn't go into
the reason for Luskin to advocate teaching intelligent design. ChatGPT
also does not include the Discovery Institute's original mission
involving the ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Post by RonO
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and
those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new
developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious
doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the
supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds
conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life
You
Why has Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute advocated teaching
intelligent design in the past? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, as a representative of the Discovery Institute, has
advocated for teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in the past for several
Promotion of Academic Freedom: The Discovery Institute has been a
proponent of academic freedom, arguing that educators should have the
right to discuss scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, including
Intelligent Design, in science classrooms. They contend that stifling
discussion on these topics amounts to censorship and limits critical
thinking.
Teaching the Controversy: The Discovery Institute has advocated for a
"teach the controversy" approach, suggesting that students should be
exposed to different perspectives on the origins of life, including
evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design. They argue that such an
approach promotes critical thinking and encourages students to evaluate
evidence and arguments from multiple viewpoints.
Critique of Darwinian Evolution: ID proponents, including the Discovery
Institute, assert that Darwinian evolution has limitations and gaps that
should be openly discussed in science education. They believe that by
teaching Intelligent Design, students can better understand these alleged
shortcomings and engage in a more comprehensive evaluation of evolutionary
theory.
Support for a Design Hypothesis: Proponents of Intelligent Design,
including Luskin, argue that certain features of the natural world
exhibit complex, specified information that cannot be fully explained by
naturalistic processes alone. They contend that such features are better
explained by the action of an intelligent designer, and therefore, ID
should be considered a legitimate scientific theory worthy of discussion
in educational settings.
It's important to note that while Luskin and the Discovery Institute
advocate for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science education,
this stance has been met with significant opposition from the scientific
community and many educational institutions, which generally regard
Intelligent Design as a form of creationism lacking empirical support and
ChatGPT seems to have a hard time differentiating lies and deception from
honest discourse. It is biased toward misrepresenting dishonest
organizations like the Discovery Institute as being somehow legitimate.
The promotion of academic freedom was only initiated to further their
original mission when ID failed to measure up as science. This occurred
years before ID lost in Federal court. When the ID perps were faced with
putting up or shutting up by teaching intelligent design in the public
schools they refused to provide any ID science to teach and instead
started pushing their obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
They continued to push teaching intelligent design in the public schools
in order to maintain their Wedge strategy, but no one is ever going to
get the ID science that never existed.
It should be noted that the Thomas More lawyer that was defending the
Dover creationist rubes described the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute had been running for the previous 3 years as a "strategy". He
noted that they would sell intelligent design, but then backoff and not
deliver, and instead the rubes got a "compromise".
You
When creationists want to teach intelligent design in the public schools
why does the Discovery Institute run the bait and switch and not give
them the ID science that they claim can be taught in the public schools,
and instead only give them an obfuscation and denial switch scam?
ChatGPT The relationship between the Discovery Institute and creationist
groups regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public
schools can be complex and multifaceted. However, it's essential to note
that the Discovery Institute itself has denied being a creationist
organization and instead presents Intelligent Design as a scientific
theory distinct from traditional creationism.
Here are a few potential reasons why there might be frustration or
perceived discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery
Legal Strategy: The Discovery Institute may adopt a cautious legal
strategy regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. Due to legal
precedents, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard,
which prohibits the teaching of creationism in public schools, advocating
explicitly for ID could invite legal challenges. Therefore, the Institute
might seek to avoid explicit association with creationism to navigate
these legal obstacles.
Scientific Validity: While creationist groups may view ID as aligned with
their beliefs, the Discovery Institute often emphasizes the scientific
aspects of Intelligent Design. They aim to position ID as a legitimate
scientific theory, separate from religious or creationist viewpoints. This
approach might lead to differences in expectations between creationist
groups, who may prioritize religious teachings, and the Discovery
Institute, which emphasizes scientific inquiry.
Strategic Differences: Creationist groups and the Discovery Institute may
have differing strategic priorities. The Institute might prioritize
presenting ID in a way that appeals to mainstream scientific and
educational communities, seeking broader acceptance and influence.
Creationist groups, on the other hand, may prioritize promoting their
specific religious beliefs, which could lead to differences in messaging
and tactics.
Public Perception: The Discovery Institute might be concerned about public
perception and the potential for backlash. Presenting ID solely as a
religious belief rather than a scientific theory could reinforce the
perception of ID as creationism in disguise, which could undermine its
acceptance within scientific and educational circles.
In summary, differences in legal strategy, scientific approach, strategic
priorities, and public perception may contribute to perceived
discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery Institute
regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. END
It also should be noted that ChatGPT takes the ID perps at their word, and
doesn't consider what the ID perps actually do. They may claim that they
are only interested in the science, but no ID science has ever been
accomplished. All that they have ever done is obfuscate and deny the
existing science. Phillip Johnson had teaching ID in the public schools
as part of the Wedge strategy to accomplish the ID perp's original
creationist mission. The ID perps might claim that their arguments are
not God-of-the-gaps, but their Top Six best evidences for ID are the same
god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists would use.
The Big Bang, fine tuning, the origin of life, the flagellum as a
designed machine, the Cambrian explosion, and gaps in the fossil record
were all used by the scientific creationists as issues that had gaps in
our scientific knowledge that some god was supposed to be able to fill.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those reasonable answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT is a word processor, not an idea processor, but sometimes it seems
that its paraphrasing of somebody's work turns out clearer than the original.
It's still a pernicious piece of software.

-------------------------------------

Nailed it. It's a very effective word processor. I've found it useful when I
need
to compose a letter and the words just escape me.

I'm certain it will give teachers from high school to post graduate programs
endless headaches. Societal norms haven't caught up to it yet. Did you hear
about the lawyer who composed a brief citing two prior cases using ChatGPT?
Then filed it?

Trouble was neither of those two cases actually existed. And the lawyer
obviously didn't check his work. The judge was *_very_* unhappy.

AI photos and art are gonna be even bigger problems.

RonO

2024-05-20 22:28:15 UTC

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those _reasonable_ answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT gives you a summary of information relevant to your question.
It only gets the information that it is fed, and as noted it does not
use the existing data to make conclusions about the data that it is
summarizing. I was an academic, but have been in private industry for
the last 19 years. You don't use ChatGPT to convince it of anything, it
just gives you summaries of the data that it has been fed. The first
science journal article with an AI generated introduction was just
published last Month. Probably the only one that anyone has owned up
to, but the claim is that they did it specifically to create such a
publication. My take is that something like ChatGPT can produce better
introductions to papers than the researchers can. I just reviewed a
paper in which the researchers wrote an introduction to research that
they had not done in the paper, and they should have known from the
introduction that they did not have the correct experimental design
because they cited papers that did have the correct experimental design
in their introduction. My guess is that if the authors had used an AI
to write the introduction that they may have realized that they didn't
do the experiment correctly (assuming that they could understand what
the AI had come up with). I don't know how they could write the
introduction that they did and not realize that they didn't do what they
thought that they were doing.

Ron Okimoto

Dexter

2024-05-21 01:09:43 UTC

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic within
both scientific and philosophical circles. While proponents of ID argue
that certain features of the universe and living organisms are best
explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes, the
scientific consensus firmly rejects ID as a valid scientific theory.
The status of Intelligent Design in academic and scientific communities
varies. In many scientific circles, it is considered a form of creationism
rather than a scientific theory because it invokes a supernatural or
divine entity as the cause of certain phenomena. As such, it is not
typically included in mainstream scientific discussions or research.
However, proponents of Intelligent Design continue to advocate for its
inclusion in academic curricula, particularly in the context of science
education. There have been legal battles over the teaching of Intelligent
Design in public schools, with courts consistently ruling that it violates
the principle of separation of church and state.
Overall, while Intelligent Design remains a topic of debate and interest
for some, particularly within certain religious or philosophical
communities, it has not gained widespread acceptance within the
You
What is the reason for Casey Luskin's claims for not teaching intelligent
design in Virginia public schools? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, who has been associated with the Discovery Institute, a
proponent organization of Intelligent Design, has likely made claims
against teaching Intelligent Design in Virginia public schools for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, there is a legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools. In 1987, the
Supreme Court ruled in the case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching
creationism alongside evolution in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the
government from establishing or endorsing any particular religion. Since
Intelligent Design is often viewed as a form of creationism, advocating
for its inclusion in public school science curricula could face legal
challenges based on this precedent.
Secondly, there is a consensus within the scientific community that
Intelligent Design lacks empirical evidence and is not a valid scientific
theory. Thus, teaching it alongside evolution in science classes could
potentially confuse students about the nature of scientific inquiry and
misrepresent the scientific understanding of the origins and development
of life on Earth.
Luskin's claims may reflect an acknowledgment of these legal and
scientific realities, advocating instead for approaches such as teaching
the controversy or academic freedom laws, which allow teachers to discuss
scientific topics without mandating the inclusion of Intelligent Design
ChatGPT then apes the Discovery Institute propaganda, but doesn't go into
the reason for Luskin to advocate teaching intelligent design. ChatGPT
also does not include the Discovery Institute's original mission
involving the ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Post by RonO
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and
those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new
developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious
doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the
supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds
conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life
You
Why has Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute advocated teaching
intelligent design in the past? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, as a representative of the Discovery Institute, has
advocated for teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in the past for several
Promotion of Academic Freedom: The Discovery Institute has been a
proponent of academic freedom, arguing that educators should have the
right to discuss scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, including
Intelligent Design, in science classrooms. They contend that stifling
discussion on these topics amounts to censorship and limits critical
thinking.
Teaching the Controversy: The Discovery Institute has advocated for a
"teach the controversy" approach, suggesting that students should be
exposed to different perspectives on the origins of life, including
evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design. They argue that such an
approach promotes critical thinking and encourages students to evaluate
evidence and arguments from multiple viewpoints.
Critique of Darwinian Evolution: ID proponents, including the Discovery
Institute, assert that Darwinian evolution has limitations and gaps that
should be openly discussed in science education. They believe that by
teaching Intelligent Design, students can better understand these alleged
shortcomings and engage in a more comprehensive evaluation of evolutionary
theory.
Support for a Design Hypothesis: Proponents of Intelligent Design,
including Luskin, argue that certain features of the natural world
exhibit complex, specified information that cannot be fully explained by
naturalistic processes alone. They contend that such features are better
explained by the action of an intelligent designer, and therefore, ID
should be considered a legitimate scientific theory worthy of discussion
in educational settings.
It's important to note that while Luskin and the Discovery Institute
advocate for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science education,
this stance has been met with significant opposition from the scientific
community and many educational institutions, which generally regard
Intelligent Design as a form of creationism lacking empirical support and
ChatGPT seems to have a hard time differentiating lies and deception from
honest discourse. It is biased toward misrepresenting dishonest
organizations like the Discovery Institute as being somehow legitimate.
The promotion of academic freedom was only initiated to further their
original mission when ID failed to measure up as science. This occurred
years before ID lost in Federal court. When the ID perps were faced with
putting up or shutting up by teaching intelligent design in the public
schools they refused to provide any ID science to teach and instead
started pushing their obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
They continued to push teaching intelligent design in the public schools
in order to maintain their Wedge strategy, but no one is ever going to
get the ID science that never existed.
It should be noted that the Thomas More lawyer that was defending the
Dover creationist rubes described the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute had been running for the previous 3 years as a "strategy". He
noted that they would sell intelligent design, but then backoff and not
deliver, and instead the rubes got a "compromise".
You
When creationists want to teach intelligent design in the public schools
why does the Discovery Institute run the bait and switch and not give
them the ID science that they claim can be taught in the public schools,
and instead only give them an obfuscation and denial switch scam?
ChatGPT The relationship between the Discovery Institute and creationist
groups regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public
schools can be complex and multifaceted. However, it's essential to note
that the Discovery Institute itself has denied being a creationist
organization and instead presents Intelligent Design as a scientific
theory distinct from traditional creationism.
Here are a few potential reasons why there might be frustration or
perceived discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery
Legal Strategy: The Discovery Institute may adopt a cautious legal
strategy regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. Due to legal
precedents, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard,
which prohibits the teaching of creationism in public schools, advocating
explicitly for ID could invite legal challenges. Therefore, the Institute
might seek to avoid explicit association with creationism to navigate
these legal obstacles.
Scientific Validity: While creationist groups may view ID as aligned with
their beliefs, the Discovery Institute often emphasizes the scientific
aspects of Intelligent Design. They aim to position ID as a legitimate
scientific theory, separate from religious or creationist viewpoints. This
approach might lead to differences in expectations between creationist
groups, who may prioritize religious teachings, and the Discovery
Institute, which emphasizes scientific inquiry.
Strategic Differences: Creationist groups and the Discovery Institute may
have differing strategic priorities. The Institute might prioritize
presenting ID in a way that appeals to mainstream scientific and
educational communities, seeking broader acceptance and influence.
Creationist groups, on the other hand, may prioritize promoting their
specific religious beliefs, which could lead to differences in messaging
and tactics.
Public Perception: The Discovery Institute might be concerned about public
perception and the potential for backlash. Presenting ID solely as a
religious belief rather than a scientific theory could reinforce the
perception of ID as creationism in disguise, which could undermine its
acceptance within scientific and educational circles.
In summary, differences in legal strategy, scientific approach, strategic
priorities, and public perception may contribute to perceived
discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery Institute
regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. END
It also should be noted that ChatGPT takes the ID perps at their word, and
doesn't consider what the ID perps actually do. They may claim that they
are only interested in the science, but no ID science has ever been
accomplished. All that they have ever done is obfuscate and deny the
existing science. Phillip Johnson had teaching ID in the public schools
as part of the Wedge strategy to accomplish the ID perp's original
creationist mission. The ID perps might claim that their arguments are
not God-of-the-gaps, but their Top Six best evidences for ID are the same
god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists would use.
The Big Bang, fine tuning, the origin of life, the flagellum as a
designed machine, the Cambrian explosion, and gaps in the fossil record
were all used by the scientific creationists as issues that had gaps in
our scientific knowledge that some god was supposed to be able to fill.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those reasonable answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT gives you a summary of information relevant to your question. It only
gets the information that it is fed, and as noted it does not use the
existing data to make conclusions about the data that it is summarizing. I
was an academic, but have been in private industry for the last 19 years.
You don't use ChatGPT to convince it of anything, it just gives you summaries
of the data that it has been fed. The first science journal article with an
AI generated introduction was just published last Month. Probably the only
one that anyone has owned up to, but the claim is that they did it
specifically to create such a publication. My take is that something like
ChatGPT can produce better introductions to papers than the researchers can.
I just reviewed a paper in which the researchers wrote an introduction to
research that they had not done in the paper, and they should have known from
the introduction that they did not have the correct experimental design
because they cited papers that did have the correct experimental design in
their introduction. My guess is that if the authors had used an AI to write
the introduction that they may have realized that they didn't do the
experiment correctly (assuming that they could understand what the AI had
come up with). I don't know how they could write the introduction that they
did and not realize that they didn't do what they thought that they were
doing.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------

And it got through peer review?

RonO

2024-05-21 23:56:37 UTC

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic within
both scientific and philosophical circles. While proponents of ID argue
that certain features of the universe and living organisms are best
explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes, the
scientific consensus firmly rejects ID as a valid scientific theory.
The status of Intelligent Design in academic and scientific communities
varies. In many scientific circles, it is considered a form of creationism
rather than a scientific theory because it invokes a supernatural or
divine entity as the cause of certain phenomena. As such, it is not
typically included in mainstream scientific discussions or research.
However, proponents of Intelligent Design continue to advocate for its
inclusion in academic curricula, particularly in the context of science
education. There have been legal battles over the teaching of Intelligent
Design in public schools, with courts consistently ruling that it violates
the principle of separation of church and state.
Overall, while Intelligent Design remains a topic of debate and interest
for some, particularly within certain religious or philosophical
communities, it has not gained widespread acceptance within the
You
What is the reason for Casey Luskin's claims for not teaching intelligent
design in Virginia public schools? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, who has been associated with the Discovery Institute, a
proponent organization of Intelligent Design, has likely made claims
against teaching Intelligent Design in Virginia public schools for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, there is a legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools. In 1987, the
Supreme Court ruled in the case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching
creationism alongside evolution in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the
government from establishing or endorsing any particular religion. Since
Intelligent Design is often viewed as a form of creationism, advocating
for its inclusion in public school science curricula could face legal
challenges based on this precedent.
Secondly, there is a consensus within the scientific community that
Intelligent Design lacks empirical evidence and is not a valid scientific
theory. Thus, teaching it alongside evolution in science classes could
potentially confuse students about the nature of scientific inquiry and
misrepresent the scientific understanding of the origins and development
of life on Earth.
Luskin's claims may reflect an acknowledgment of these legal and
scientific realities, advocating instead for approaches such as teaching
the controversy or academic freedom laws, which allow teachers to discuss
scientific topics without mandating the inclusion of Intelligent Design
ChatGPT then apes the Discovery Institute propaganda, but doesn't go into
the reason for Luskin to advocate teaching intelligent design. ChatGPT
also does not include the Discovery Institute's original mission
involving the ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Post by RonO
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one
of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its
influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest
achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and
those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new
developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious
doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for the
supernatural. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds
conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life
You
Why has Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute advocated teaching
intelligent design in the past? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, as a representative of the Discovery Institute, has
advocated for teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in the past for several
Promotion of Academic Freedom: The Discovery Institute has been a
proponent of academic freedom, arguing that educators should have the
right to discuss scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, including
Intelligent Design, in science classrooms. They contend that stifling
discussion on these topics amounts to censorship and limits critical
thinking.
Teaching the Controversy: The Discovery Institute has advocated for a
"teach the controversy" approach, suggesting that students should be
exposed to different perspectives on the origins of life, including
evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design. They argue that such an
approach promotes critical thinking and encourages students to evaluate
evidence and arguments from multiple viewpoints.
Critique of Darwinian Evolution: ID proponents, including the Discovery
Institute, assert that Darwinian evolution has limitations and gaps that
should be openly discussed in science education. They believe that by
teaching Intelligent Design, students can better understand these alleged
shortcomings and engage in a more comprehensive evaluation of evolutionary
theory.
Support for a Design Hypothesis: Proponents of Intelligent Design,
including Luskin, argue that certain features of the natural world
exhibit complex, specified information that cannot be fully explained by
naturalistic processes alone. They contend that such features are better
explained by the action of an intelligent designer, and therefore, ID
should be considered a legitimate scientific theory worthy of discussion
in educational settings.
It's important to note that while Luskin and the Discovery Institute
advocate for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science education,
this stance has been met with significant opposition from the scientific
community and many educational institutions, which generally regard
Intelligent Design as a form of creationism lacking empirical support and
ChatGPT seems to have a hard time differentiating lies and deception from
honest discourse. It is biased toward misrepresenting dishonest
organizations like the Discovery Institute as being somehow legitimate.
The promotion of academic freedom was only initiated to further their
original mission when ID failed to measure up as science. This occurred
years before ID lost in Federal court. When the ID perps were faced with
putting up or shutting up by teaching intelligent design in the public
schools they refused to provide any ID science to teach and instead
started pushing their obfuscation and denial switch scam onto the rubes.
They continued to push teaching intelligent design in the public schools
in order to maintain their Wedge strategy, but no one is ever going to
get the ID science that never existed.
It should be noted that the Thomas More lawyer that was defending the
Dover creationist rubes described the bait and switch that the Discovery
Institute had been running for the previous 3 years as a "strategy". He
noted that they would sell intelligent design, but then backoff and not
deliver, and instead the rubes got a "compromise".
You
When creationists want to teach intelligent design in the public schools
why does the Discovery Institute run the bait and switch and not give
them the ID science that they claim can be taught in the public schools,
and instead only give them an obfuscation and denial switch scam?
ChatGPT The relationship between the Discovery Institute and creationist
groups regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in public
schools can be complex and multifaceted. However, it's essential to note
that the Discovery Institute itself has denied being a creationist
organization and instead presents Intelligent Design as a scientific
theory distinct from traditional creationism.
Here are a few potential reasons why there might be frustration or
perceived discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery
Legal Strategy: The Discovery Institute may adopt a cautious legal
strategy regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. Due to legal
precedents, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard,
which prohibits the teaching of creationism in public schools, advocating
explicitly for ID could invite legal challenges. Therefore, the Institute
might seek to avoid explicit association with creationism to navigate
these legal obstacles.
Scientific Validity: While creationist groups may view ID as aligned with
their beliefs, the Discovery Institute often emphasizes the scientific
aspects of Intelligent Design. They aim to position ID as a legitimate
scientific theory, separate from religious or creationist viewpoints. This
approach might lead to differences in expectations between creationist
groups, who may prioritize religious teachings, and the Discovery
Institute, which emphasizes scientific inquiry.
Strategic Differences: Creationist groups and the Discovery Institute may
have differing strategic priorities. The Institute might prioritize
presenting ID in a way that appeals to mainstream scientific and
educational communities, seeking broader acceptance and influence.
Creationist groups, on the other hand, may prioritize promoting their
specific religious beliefs, which could lead to differences in messaging
and tactics.
Public Perception: The Discovery Institute might be concerned about public
perception and the potential for backlash. Presenting ID solely as a
religious belief rather than a scientific theory could reinforce the
perception of ID as creationism in disguise, which could undermine its
acceptance within scientific and educational circles.
In summary, differences in legal strategy, scientific approach, strategic
priorities, and public perception may contribute to perceived
discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery Institute
regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. END
It also should be noted that ChatGPT takes the ID perps at their word, and
doesn't consider what the ID perps actually do. They may claim that they
are only interested in the science, but no ID science has ever been
accomplished. All that they have ever done is obfuscate and deny the
existing science. Phillip Johnson had teaching ID in the public schools
as part of the Wedge strategy to accomplish the ID perp's original
creationist mission. The ID perps might claim that their arguments are
not God-of-the-gaps, but their Top Six best evidences for ID are the same
god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists would use.
The Big Bang, fine tuning, the origin of life, the flagellum as a
designed machine, the Cambrian explosion, and gaps in the fossil record
were all used by the scientific creationists as issues that had gaps in
our scientific knowledge that some god was supposed to be able to fill.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those reasonable answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT gives you a summary of information relevant to your question. It only
gets the information that it is fed, and as noted it does not use the
existing data to make conclusions about the data that it is summarizing. I
was an academic, but have been in private industry for the last 19 years.
You don't use ChatGPT to convince it of anything, it just gives you summaries
of the data that it has been fed. The first science journal article with an
AI generated introduction was just published last Month. Probably the only
one that anyone has owned up to, but the claim is that they did it
specifically to create such a publication. My take is that something like
ChatGPT can produce better introductions to papers than the researchers can.
I just reviewed a paper in which the researchers wrote an introduction to
research that they had not done in the paper, and they should have known from
the introduction that they did not have the correct experimental design
because they cited papers that did have the correct experimental design in
their introduction. My guess is that if the authors had used an AI to write
the introduction that they may have realized that they didn't do the
experiment correctly (assuming that they could understand what the AI had
come up with). I don't know how they could write the introduction that they
did and not realize that they didn't do what they thought that they were
doing.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
And it got through peer review?

The paper was not accepted and was sent back to the authors requesting
major revisions. It should be hard to get a paper published if you do
not understand what you were trying to do.

Ron Okimoto

Dexter

2024-05-22 14:50:39 UTC

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic
within both scientific and philosophical circles. While proponents of
ID argue that certain features of the universe and living organisms
are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural
processes, the scientific consensus firmly rejects ID as a valid
scientific theory.
The status of Intelligent Design in academic and scientific
communities varies. In many scientific circles, it is considered a
form of creationism rather than a scientific theory because it
invokes a supernatural or divine entity as the cause of certain
phenomena. As such, it is not typically included in mainstream
scientific discussions or research.
However, proponents of Intelligent Design continue to advocate for its
inclusion in academic curricula, particularly in the context of
science education. There have been legal battles over the teaching of
Intelligent Design in public schools, with courts consistently ruling
that it violates the principle of separation of church and state.
Overall, while Intelligent Design remains a topic of debate and
interest for some, particularly within certain religious or
philosophical communities, it has not gained widespread acceptance
within the scientific community as a legitimate scientific theory.
You
What is the reason for Casey Luskin's claims for not teaching
intelligent design in Virginia public schools? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, who has been associated with the Discovery Institute, a
proponent organization of Intelligent Design, has likely made claims
against teaching Intelligent Design in Virginia public schools for a
couple of reasons.
Firstly, there is a legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court
regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools. In 1987, the
Supreme Court ruled in the case Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching
creationism alongside evolution in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the
government from establishing or endorsing any particular religion.
Since Intelligent Design is often viewed as a form of creationism,
advocating for its inclusion in public school science curricula could
face legal challenges based on this precedent.
Secondly, there is a consensus within the scientific community that
Intelligent Design lacks empirical evidence and is not a valid
scientific theory. Thus, teaching it alongside evolution in science
classes could potentially confuse students about the nature of
scientific inquiry and misrepresent the scientific understanding of
the origins and development of life on Earth.
Luskin's claims may reflect an acknowledgment of these legal and
scientific realities, advocating instead for approaches such as
teaching the controversy or academic freedom laws, which allow
teachers to discuss scientific topics without mandating the inclusion
ChatGPT then apes the Discovery Institute propaganda, but doesn't go
into the reason for Luskin to advocate teaching intelligent design.
ChatGPT also does not include the Discovery Institute's original
mission involving the ID scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Post by RonO
THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is
one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was
built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the
West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy,
human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning
cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the
natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences,
the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and
cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism
and have re-opened the case for the supernatural. The Center awards
fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs
policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism. END
You
Why has Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute advocated teaching
intelligent design in the past? ChatGPT
Casey Luskin, as a representative of the Discovery Institute, has
advocated for teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in the past for several
Promotion of Academic Freedom: The Discovery Institute has been a
proponent of academic freedom, arguing that educators should have the
right to discuss scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory,
including Intelligent Design, in science classrooms. They contend
that stifling discussion on these topics amounts to censorship and
limits critical thinking.
Teaching the Controversy: The Discovery Institute has advocated for a
"teach the controversy" approach, suggesting that students should be
exposed to different perspectives on the origins of life, including
evolutionary biology and Intelligent Design. They argue that such an
approach promotes critical thinking and encourages students to
evaluate evidence and arguments from multiple viewpoints.
Critique of Darwinian Evolution: ID proponents, including the
Discovery Institute, assert that Darwinian evolution has limitations
and gaps that should be openly discussed in science education. They
believe that by teaching Intelligent Design, students can better
understand these alleged shortcomings and engage in a more
comprehensive evaluation of evolutionary theory.
Support for a Design Hypothesis: Proponents of Intelligent Design,
including Luskin, argue that certain features of the natural world
exhibit complex, specified information that cannot be fully explained
by naturalistic processes alone. They contend that such features are
better explained by the action of an intelligent designer, and
therefore, ID should be considered a legitimate scientific theory
worthy of discussion in educational settings.
It's important to note that while Luskin and the Discovery Institute
advocate for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in science education,
this stance has been met with significant opposition from the
scientific community and many educational institutions, which
generally regard Intelligent Design as a form of creationism lacking
ChatGPT seems to have a hard time differentiating lies and deception
from honest discourse. It is biased toward misrepresenting dishonest
organizations like the Discovery Institute as being somehow legitimate.
The promotion of academic freedom was only initiated to further their
original mission when ID failed to measure up as science. This
occurred years before ID lost in Federal court. When the ID perps
were faced with putting up or shutting up by teaching intelligent
design in the public schools they refused to provide any ID science
to teach and instead started pushing their obfuscation and denial
switch scam onto the rubes. They continued to push teaching
intelligent design in the public schools in order to maintain their
Wedge strategy, but no one is ever going to get the ID science that
never existed.
It should be noted that the Thomas More lawyer that was defending the
Dover creationist rubes described the bait and switch that the
Discovery Institute had been running for the previous 3 years as a
"strategy". He noted that they would sell intelligent design, but
then backoff and not deliver, and instead the rubes got a
"compromise".
You
When creationists want to teach intelligent design in the public
schools why does the Discovery Institute run the bait and switch and
not give them the ID science that they claim can be taught in the
public schools, and instead only give them an obfuscation and denial
switch scam? ChatGPT The relationship between the Discovery
Institute and creationist groups regarding the teaching of
Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools can be complex and
multifaceted. However, it's essential to note that the Discovery
Institute itself has denied being a creationist organization and
instead presents Intelligent Design as a scientific theory distinct
from traditional creationism.
Here are a few potential reasons why there might be frustration or
perceived discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery
Legal Strategy: The Discovery Institute may adopt a cautious legal
strategy regarding the teaching of ID in public schools. Due to legal
precedents, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard,
which prohibits the teaching of creationism in public schools,
advocating explicitly for ID could invite legal challenges.
Therefore, the Institute might seek to avoid explicit association
with creationism to navigate these legal obstacles.
Scientific Validity: While creationist groups may view ID as aligned
with their beliefs, the Discovery Institute often emphasizes the
scientific aspects of Intelligent Design. They aim to position ID as
a legitimate scientific theory, separate from religious or
creationist viewpoints. This approach might lead to differences in
expectations between creationist groups, who may prioritize religious
teachings, and the Discovery Institute, which emphasizes scientific
inquiry.
Strategic Differences: Creationist groups and the Discovery Institute
may have differing strategic priorities. The Institute might
prioritize presenting ID in a way that appeals to mainstream
scientific and educational communities, seeking broader acceptance
and influence. Creationist groups, on the other hand, may prioritize
promoting their specific religious beliefs, which could lead to
differences in messaging and tactics.
Public Perception: The Discovery Institute might be concerned about
public perception and the potential for backlash. Presenting ID
solely as a religious belief rather than a scientific theory could
reinforce the perception of ID as creationism in disguise, which
could undermine its acceptance within scientific and educational
circles.
In summary, differences in legal strategy, scientific approach,
strategic priorities, and public perception may contribute to
perceived discrepancies between creationist groups and the Discovery
Institute regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public
It also should be noted that ChatGPT takes the ID perps at their
word, and doesn't consider what the ID perps actually do. They may
claim that they are only interested in the science, but no ID science
has ever been accomplished. All that they have ever done is
obfuscate and deny the existing science. Phillip Johnson had
teaching ID in the public schools as part of the Wedge strategy to
accomplish the ID perp's original creationist mission. The ID perps
might claim that their arguments are not God-of-the-gaps, but their
Top Six best evidences for ID are the same god-of-the-gaps arguments
that the scientific creationists would use. The Big Bang, fine
tuning, the origin of life, the flagellum as a designed machine, the
Cambrian explosion, and gaps in the fossil record were all used by
the scientific creationists as issues that had gaps in our scientific
knowledge that some god was supposed to be able to fill.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
It's been my impression over the years that you are an instructor,
possibly at the University level. I may well be mistaken. However,
you no doubt know that ChatGPT isn't capable of reasoning. It
merely assembles words in a manner that gives seemingly reasonable
answers.
Sometimes those reasonable answers coincide with the thinking or
knowledge of the interlocutor. Sometimes they don't. But the
program doesn't know if its answers are reasonable or even correct.
http://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4
In this video, Alex O'Conner convinces ChatGPT that god exists.

ChatGPT gives you a summary of information relevant to your question. It
only gets the information that it is fed, and as noted it does not use the
existing data to make conclusions about the data that it is summarizing.
I was an academic, but have been in private industry for the last 19
years. You don't use ChatGPT to convince it of anything, it just gives
you summaries of the data that it has been fed. The first science
journal article with an AI generated introduction was just published last
Month. Probably the only one that anyone has owned up to, but the claim
is that they did it specifically to create such a publication. My take
is that something like ChatGPT can produce better introductions to papers
than the researchers can. I just reviewed a paper in which the
researchers wrote an introduction to research that they had not done in
the paper, and they should have known from the introduction that they did
not have the correct experimental design because they cited papers that
did have the correct experimental design in their introduction. My guess
is that if the authors had used an AI to write the introduction that they
may have realized that they didn't do the experiment correctly (assuming
that they could understand what the AI had come up with). I don't know
how they could write the introduction that they did and not realize that
they didn't do what they thought that they were doing.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
And it got through peer review?

The paper was not accepted and was sent back to the authors requesting major
revisions. It should be hard to get a paper published if you do not
understand what you were trying to do.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------

Quite rightly so. Mine was a silly question.

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-05-22 15:53:29 UTC

On Wed, 22 May 2024 14:50:39 +0000

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic

[]

The paper was not accepted and was sent back to the authors requesting major
revisions. It should be hard to get a paper published if you do not
understand what you were trying to do.
Ron Okimoto

-------------------------------------
Quite rightly so. Mine was a silly question.

TLDNR. I was told one-line replies to screeds of text were bad way back
when I was a newbie.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Dexter

2024-05-22 16:52:56 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 22 May 2024 14:50:39 +0000

Post by RonO
You
What is the current status of Intelligent Design creationism?
ChatGPT
Intelligent Design (ID) creationism remains a controversial topic

[]