Garbage in, garbage out

Has anyone else’s ChatGPT turned especially gushy lately? When I signed up for 4.0, I chose “Ember,” a calm male voice without particular affectations. “Good question,” he’d say when I asked for an easy beef gravy recipe. But recently Ember’s handlers decided he wasn’t chipper enough. Now, when I ask a question, Ember effervesces: “Oooooh!! Great question!!”

There’s something creepy about an over-friendly robot. But I use Ember fairly often, despite occasional errors. So I decided to see how Chat would interpret certain parts of Genesis.

Me: How do creationists interpret Genesis 1, verses 6 through 8?

Ember: Creationists typically interpret Genesis 1:6-8, which describes the creation of the firmament, as referring to a physical structure that God created to separate the “waters above” from the “waters below.” They often view it as part of the literal seven-day creation account, emphasizing that it demonstrates God’s deliberate and orderly creation process.

I was pleased with this answer. Accurate. Straightforward. Nonjudgmental. I’ve also found Chat very useful for defining words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So I asked Ember what the word “void” means in Genesis 1:2.

Ember: In this context, “void” refers to a state of emptiness or chaos. The Hebrew phrase “tohu va’vohu” is often interpreted as formlessness and emptiness. Essentially, it suggests that the earth was in a primordial, unformed state, lacking order and structure before creation.

That was spot-on. So I was a little surprised when I challenged Ember with a follow-up and he responded with an “argument from ignorance”—a logical fallacy that presents assumptions as fact without supporting evidence.

Me: How do evolutionary scientists explain the transition from chaos to order?

Ember: Evolutionary scientists explain the transition from chaos to order through natural processes governed by physical laws.

Ember went on to refer to “gravitational forces” and “chemical processes” and “natural selection”—apparently self-­existent order-makers that require no explanation of origin.

Me, pressing: Where do evolutionary scientists say that the physical, chemical, and biological laws came from?

Ember: These laws are thought to have emerged naturally as the universe developed, following the Big Bang. For example, physical laws like gravity and electromagnetism are considered fundamental properties of the universe. As for biological laws, they arose as life developed, rooted in chemistry and physics.

Me, driving for the basket: Can evolutionary scientists point to any example in which chaos became order on its own, without the intervention of an intelligent being such as a human or God?

Ember: Evolutionary scientists often point to natural processes governed by physical laws as examples of order arising from chaos. For instance, the formation of stars and galaxies from the initial chaos of the Big Bang is one example.

Ha! Now he was just begging the question, assuming the truth of his conclusion to support his premise.

Ember: Another [example] is the emergence of life from non-living chemical compounds through natural processes like chemical evolution.

Well, he got me there—or, I should say, almost got me. In 1953, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids and other organic molecules could emerge via inorganic chemical evolution. But there were two problems: Miller and Urey. The experiment required intelligent intervention—in other words, designers.

Me: In the context of Einstein’s theory of relativity, how do evolutionary scientists grapple with the fact that the formation of our universe requires a First Cause—an Uncaused Cause?

Ember: In the context of Einstein’s theory of relativity … the question of a “first cause” or “uncaused cause” often falls within the domain of philosophy or theology.

Me: Would it be fair to say, then, that evolutionary scientists simply ignore the necessity of an uncaused cause?

Ember: Not exactly … Scientists aim to trace back events as far as possible using empirical evidence. When they reach the limits of current knowledge, questions about what might lie beyond are left open to further inquiry.

Poor Ember. Evolutionary scientists seem allergic to “further inquiry” because evolution has long since become their dogma. They’ve cut themselves off from readily available answers to the most important questions people can ask. Ember can’t help it, of course. Garbage in, garbage out. He’s only as good as the data he trawls.