Recently, design theorist Bill Dempsky decided to discuss the question of whether 1) the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, or 2) intelligent design as the origin of the universe and life, are testable ideas in science, on his chatbot ChatGPT4o.
![](https://i0.wp.com/mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/-000//1/31EMHHwZ-AL._UX250_.jpg?resize=250%2C375&ssl=1)
You’ll have to read the whole conversation, including Demski’s comments, to get the finer points, but the gist, as he says, is that “a research program is regarded by the mainstream scientific community as legitimate science.” [SETI]the other is doubtful [design].”
ET must be there
Interacting with chatbots is, of course, one of the more searched for parts of the internet. Here are some highlights:
myself: Is SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, testable science, and if so, what scientific claims are testable (and if so, how)?
Chat GPT4o: SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is truly testable science. It uses the scientific method to search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. Below are some testable scientific claims made by SETI and the methods they use to test them: [ChatGPT4o elaborates on the claims and testing methods, then concludes:]
SETI is a testable science that makes specific claims about the existence of extraterrestrial technological civilizations and their detectable characteristics. These claims are verified through targeted observations, advanced signal processing, and searches for technological signatures. The field continues to evolve with technological advances and our understanding of the universe, making it an ongoing and dynamic area of scientific inquiry.
Bill Demski, “Verifiability of SETI and Intelligent Design with ChatGPT4o,” June 23, 2024
![](https://i0.wp.com/mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SETI-checklist.jpg?resize=749%2C422&ssl=1)
Demski added: evidence About Extraterrestrials (ET). The chatbot provides a lot of information and responds with the following:
Although SETI has not yet definitively confirmed the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, searches are becoming increasingly sophisticated and sensitive. Advances in technology and methodology hope to lead to future discoveries, but as of now there is no conclusive evidence.
“According to ChatGPT4o”
And Demski commented:
One cannot help but wonder what conclusions biologists would reach if they were to employ the same meticulous care with which SETI researchers look for signs of intelligence from space when looking for signs of intelligence in biology. SETI research is like an oil company drilling for oil and never finding it. In contrast, biology is like an oil company drilling for oil and finding oil again and again but never recognizing it as oil because their cognitive faculties are clouded by Darwinism.
“According to ChatGPT4o”
Finally, the big test
![Cell membrane and biology, biological concept, 3D rendering.](https://i0.wp.com/mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/08/cell-membrane-concept-1597x1065.jpg?resize=749%2C499&ssl=1)
Demski asks.
myself: Is intelligent design testable?
Chat GPT4o: The question of whether intelligent design (ID) is verifiable is a topic of great debate in the scientific community. Below is a detailed review of the arguments for and against the verifiability of intelligent design.
A discussion ensued, with Bott concluding:
Conclusion: Although proponents of intelligent design claim that it is testable through concepts such as irreducible complexity and specific complexity, the scientific community as a whole generally considers these arguments to be insufficient. The main criticisms are that ID lacks predictive power, that it relies heavily on negative arguments against evolution, and that it implies a supernatural causal mechanism that is outside the scope of methodological naturalism.
Ultimately, the question of verifiability hinges on whether ID can generate positive, predictive, and falsifiable hypotheses that can be rigorously tested and compared with naturalistic explanations.To date, the scientific community agrees that intelligent design does not meet these criteria to the degree necessary to be considered a testable scientific theory.
“According to ChatGPT4o”
Demski thinks this is better than the typical anti-ID rants circulating, but not as warm as the bot’s defense of SETI, which, when he asks about it, the bot asserts that SETI is easier to verify than ID.
Conclusion: SETI is superior to Intelligent Design in terms of verifiability because it formulates clear, empirically testable hypotheses, operates within a framework of methodological naturalism, and produces falsifiable and reproducible results. SETI’s methodology is well integrated into the scientific community through peer review and transparent research practices. In contrast, Intelligent Design is not well integrated into the scientific community because it often lacks clear predictive power, has questionable falsifiability, and relies on supernatural explanations.
“According to ChatGPT4o”
![Brain: A network of astrocytes, glial cells that support neurons.](https://i0.wp.com/mindmatters.ai/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/brain-network-of-astrocytes-glial-cells-that-support-neurons-stockpack-adobe-stock-1597x1030.jpg?resize=749%2C483&ssl=1)
Demski commented:
This reply is an exercise in special apologetics, giving all the advantages to SETI and all the disadvantages to ID. By any objective standard, ID research is in a much stronger position than SETI research. ID can point to actual biological systems that are likely to be designed. To date, SETI has not been able to point to any cosmic influences that are likely to be designed. An interesting point is made here about methodological naturalism. If ID proponents posited a teleological force that was neither mechanically reducible nor supernatural, would that improve the science of ID?
For example, is panspermia, the theory that extraterrestrial intelligence will seed Earth with life, a better theory of intelligent design than a theory that suggests the designer may be supernatural? Whether the designer of biological information is supernatural is irrelevant to ID. Therefore, methodological naturalism is a misleading argument for ID.
As it stands, ID research does not invoke the supernatural; it discovers patterns of information that require an intelligent cause. Such causes operate through natural processes, but they raise questions about the ultimate source of information that is attributable to a natural intelligence.
“According to ChatGPT4o”
The myth of objectivity
Ultimately, the fundamental problem is the guiding myth of objectivity: Many of the people who pursue science—the people who produce the material that robots sift through and catalogue—desperately want to find extraterrestrial life, not find design.
here Mind Matters News We’ve published a number of articles examining the many theories of why extraterrestrial life hasn’t emerged. Many of the same people strongly reject the idea of intelligent design, preferring instead to believe that the human mind is an illusion. Demski can argue with chatbots because they probably haven’t been programmed to be nefarious in the way that many humans have been..
But a session with a bot requires at least some concept of identity. teeth It’s starting to sink in. If bots had existed 10 years ago, everything would be so much worse.