The Creationist/Evolutionist Turing Test

The aim of the Turing test is to see if a computer is "intelligent" or not. the idea is that the computer holds a conversation with a person (for double blind studies, the person might be having a conversation with another person, or the computer), and if the person is convinced that they are actually having a conversation with another person, rather than a computer, then the computer passes the Turing test.

Now this is a test for Creationists to see if they understand evolutionary arguments or not. What I would like some creationists to do, is pretend they are arguing for evolution, your task, is to actually make the argument such that nobody pick up any sense of parody, sarcasm or whatever.

If anyone is really interested, I would like it if a few creationists could submit their proposals directly to me through PM, and some evolutionists too, then I will make a poll thread, strip the names from the posts, post them in the thread, and see if people can identify who is a creationist and who is an evolutionist.

If people are even more interested, at a later date we can do this the other way round, with Evolutionists pretending to be creationists.

anyone up for it? post here if you are intereted in the challenge, and then I will get back to you if I would like a submission from you.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Hey this is a cool idea. It's like the Loebner contest (the Turing test in practice).

Can evolutionists purposefully submit arguments made to sound like we're actually Creationists trying to make an argument for evolution in order to throw people off?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil
"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil

no, I'd rather that people made their arguments for evolution as genuine as possible. as I said, what I want is for a few creationists and evolutionists to make an offer to write something in this thread, and then I will approach them to write it for me, send it to me, and then I will post it annonymously in a poll and see if people can identify who is who.

at this stage I am unsure as to how to vet this. It would be easy for me to just pick the worst creationist offerings and make the task as easy as possible, perhaps I might need a creationist co-moderator of this little challenge to decide which examples to post.

any suggestions for modifications of the challenge are of course, welcome.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Why not just post all of them then?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are Creationists, and there are Realists. Which one are you? - Dracil
"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest
"There may be many other fish in the sea, but there are just as many fishermen." - Dracil

I think a smaller number of entries, say 3/4 on each side would stand a greater chance of being read.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

I would gladly write a brief explanation and defense of evolution for the sake of this experiment.

__________________

The light of science and reason is gradually filling the room of human understanding, and as it continues to do so all the little superstitious cockroaches are scurrying to find another dark place to hide.

Actually Jet I think this is more of a reverse turing. You're trying to show that humans articulating a position are unintelligent because their speech can be replicated randomly, rather than showing the randomizing machine to be intelligent.
I've read about this before. Alan Sokal published a book about this, Fashionable Nonsense, where he got a computer program to write gibberish that sounds like postmodernist literary criticism and got a "paper" published in a journal. Good stuff.

__________________

not really, this is an opportunity for creationists to convince us that they are something they are not (evolutionists that is, not intelligent :p)

let me put it this way. It appears to me, that the majority of the time, the creationists do not know what they are talking about in the fact that they repeatedly fail to fully understand the evolutionist position.

Now if they do understand it, they should be able to replicate the evolutionist position, but if they do not, they will try to replicate it and fail - and their creationist position will be evident from their fundamental misunderstandings of evolution. evolutionists of course should be able to illustrate their own position clearly.

so this isn't about random gibberish generation, it is more about people knowing and understanding the other person's position well enough to be able to replicate it.

I might add, that I don't just want submissions about "what evolution is" I'd also like some submissions about "evidence for evolution"

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Send me a form. I'll be glad to cooperate.

__________________

I understand what you mean. But I wouldn't expect any meaningful replies from the creationist side. At the very least, you won't get anything that isnt a direct copy and paste.

__________________