QUOTE:
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.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories.
END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish: http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html


QUOTE:
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.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity.
END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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
Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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 Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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
theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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,
primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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 Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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 Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

erik simpson wrote:

On 5/20/24 6:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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 Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/20/2024 8:09 PM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs: >>>>
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 >>>> scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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
Institute:

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
QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:09 PM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 theories. END QUOTE:

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.

Original mission that the ID perps signed up to accomplish:

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

QUOTE:
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. END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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 QUOTE:

QUOTE:
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, primarily stemming from the organization's mission and beliefs:

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 scientific validity. END QUOTE:

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".

QUOTE:
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 Institute:

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 QUOTE:

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:

https://youtu.be/wS7IPxLZrR4?si=wYzr1-Nades13lrr

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 22 May 2024 14:50:39 +0000
"Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:09 PM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2024 14:50:39 +0000
"Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:09 PM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

On 5/20/2024 8:57 AM, Dexter wrote:

RonO wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

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

And yet you found two tiny sentences worthy of
your attention. Strange.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)