In Part 4 of my debate with ChatGPT, the Artificial Intelligence chatbot, I challenged the bot on its use of “objective truth,” since the evolutionary worldview cannot account for an immaterial concept such as truth, but the Bible accounts for it (John 14:6). Also, I tested ChatGPT’s knowledge about creation scientists and creation models, and challenged ChatGPT’s claim that evolutionary scientists rely upon “evidence-based research” and that they presumably consider “multiple perspectives.” The discussion transitioned to ChatGPT’s implied claim that the Bible relies upon blind faith. Below is Part 5 of 8 of my debate with ChatGPT.
ChatGPT:
It is true that it is important to consider multiple perspectives and approaches when exploring scientific questions, and the scientific community should always strive to remain open-minded and unbiased in their pursuit of scientific knowledge. While it is true that some scientists may hold biases or assumptions that affect their research, the scientific community as a whole relies on rigorous testing and peer review to validate scientific claims and theories.
Regarding the acceptance of biblical worldview within the scientific community, it is important to note that science is a methodology for understanding the natural world, while the Bible is a religious text that provides a theological framework for understanding the world. While science and religion can complement each other, they operate in different domains and use different methods for understanding reality. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use religious texts or beliefs to replace or contradict scientific findings, which are based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing.
Kevin:
The Bible also helps us understand the natural world, and that is where your response is objectively wrong. Also, you told me earlier that truth can be subjective, so within the worldview that you rely upon (the evolutionary worldview), that must mean that your response of "it is not appropriate to use religious texts" here is also subjective. Moreover, observational science is perfectly consistent with God's Word.
ChatGPT:
As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or a worldview. My responses are based on the information available to me and the parameters of the question asked.
In regards to the use of religious texts in scientific inquiry, it is generally considered inappropriate to rely on religious texts as the sole source of information in the scientific community. This is because religious texts are typically based on faith and revelation rather than empirical evidence and experimentation, which are the cornerstones of scientific inquiry. However, religious texts can provide inspiration for scientific inquiry and can be studied as a cultural or historical artifact.
Observational science is indeed consistent with the Bible, as there are many areas of science that do not conflict with biblical teachings. However, it is also important to recognize that there are areas where scientific findings may appear to conflict with biblical teachings, such as in the area of evolution. In these cases, it is important to consider all available evidence and perspectives and to approach the question with an open mind, seeking to understand the nature of the evidence and the potential implications for our understanding of the natural world.
Kevin:
Is not the evolutionary worldview based on faith? After all, the evolutionary worldview presupposes that life came from non-life, and that organisms can add brand new genetic information and functionality (such as an originally blind organism evolving eyesight)...neither of which any human has ever observed, but evolutionists accept this by faith.
Notice how ChatGPT did not argue my point about how its earlier comments on “subjective truth” undermine any truth claim that it ever makes. Instead, the bot just repeating its claim about the supposed rigor of mainstream scientific ideas (that promote the evolutionary worldview) and goes on to claim that “…religious texts are typically based on faith and revelation.” Yet, the Bible isn’t just any religious text…it is special revelation from the very breath of God (2 Tim 3:16) and it is certainly not based on blind faith. ChatGPT goes on to specifically say that “…scientific findings may appear to conflict with biblical teachings, such as in the area of evolution.” In reality, authentic observational science is perfectly consistent with biblical, young Earth creation, which the reader can learn more about by reading other blog posts on this website, and especially by reading content from scientists and apologists at Answers in Genesis.
Given ChatGPT’s implied claim that the Bible is based on blind faith, I decided to switch gears and turn the tables on the bot’s evolutionary worldview. I challenged it to the fact that the evolutionary worldview depends on concepts that have never been observed, and therefore, the evolutionary worldview is based on blind faith, not observational science. That part of the discussion continues in Part 6 of the debate, which I will share in my next blog post.