Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ideological Turing Test

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

To all of our friends who subscribe to materialist accounts of evolution:

Here is an interesting little test.

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries. The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

Now most folks in the ID movement can pass the test when it comes to materialist evolutionary theory.  After all, it is the dominant paradigm, and it has been crammed down our throats all of our lives.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  Our opponents often insist that only someone who does not truly understand their theory can reject it.  Let’s set that bit of self-serving question begging aside.  It really is the case that I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents.  Invariably we get some caricature like “ID posits that all complex things must be designed.”

So, here is my challenge to our opponents:  Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test?  If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

 

 

 

Comments
Barry, I take it most advocates of ID agree with the DI summary:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
ID proposes that this intelligent cause can be detected through scientific means. I believe some ID proponents also argue against an unguided universe, claiming that life in particular could not plausibly have evolved naturalistically. Thus we have both pro-ID arguments as well as anti-naturalism arguments. Off the top of my head, I recall seeing such arguments based on various concepts of information, fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, and the theory of computation. I am not a scientist, so my opinion doesn't carry much weight, but I don't think that ID is necessarily unscientific.daveS
November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
I don't see much value in the exercise, since I'm much more interested in evidence than ideology. But, briefly. Intelligent design advocates argue that some features of the natural world are best explained by the action of some intelligence, rather than natural and/or undirected forces. In biology this goal is usually pursued by demonstrating that biological systems (including particular proteins, other gene products and interactions among these molecules) could not have have been generated by the biological processes known to generate and filter genetic diversity.wd400
November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Barry, I love this test. I like that it is independant of any ideology. I do believe that the inverse of your proposed test, the ability of us IDers to pass the neo-Darwin test, is just as essential to this discussion as the test you propose. I bet, however, that a majority of us could pass with flying colors. The biggest giveaway would be that we know more about the science behind the theory than most Darwinists, and it'd show thorough.bFast
November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
MatSpirit, WD400, Seversky, daveS We know you are lurking around. Why don't you give it a go?Barry Arrington
November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply