Religious 1: My Christian debate with AI

I took on the Christian vs Evolution debate with Claude 3

Eph 5:11:"…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”.

Amos 3:7 “…God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Why this post?

To provide evidence of the most basic problems with the theory of evolution which starts us off with a series on the apologetic weight of prophecy.

Switch over

This post marks my switch to religious topics. I could cite more secular posts but the intention was always to provide enough evidence that there is clear and active effort to suppress the truth, and which more so than true Christianity.

Index to the series

This series awkwardly attempts to guide the reader through an apologetics journey that starts with a basic evolutionary debate, to religious and Biblical evidences and then digs into the marvel of Prophecy up to the end of days. Herewith the index:

1. I take on the the evolutionary debate with Claude GPT: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-1-my-christian-debate-with

2. A Christian Nationalism wave is building which leads to the King of the North: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-there-is-a-wave-coming

3. All the main apologetic categories but then introduces Prophecy: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-3-a-deterministic-design

4. Covers the main religions and what sets Christianity apart: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-4-which-religion

5. Unpacks the marvel of a lengthy list of prophecies about Jesus: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-5-prophecies-about-jesus

6. Describes the attributes of true Biblical prophecy: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-6-define-prophecy 

7. Historical record of which Bible is most trustworthy and the blatant edit of others: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-7-which-bible 

8. Describes how Roman Catholicism differs vastly from Biblical Christianity: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-8-roman-catholicism-vs 

9. Biblical interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-9-nebuchadnezzars-dream 

10. Identifies the first beast using a lengthy list of Biblical criteria: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-10-the-first-beast 

11. Delineates the three major prophetic timelines from Daniel: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-11-prophetic-timelines

12. Describes what happens when the longest prophetic timeline lapses: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-12-the-judgement

13. Elaborates the marvel of chiastic writing: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-13-chiasms-in-the-bible 

14. Provides evidence for who and what the King of the North is: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-14-king-of-the-north 

15. Identifies the second beast against a Biblical list of criteria: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-15-the-second-beast

16. Lengthy list of evidences on the mark of the beast: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-16-the-mark-of-the-beast

17. Shows that the 7 Churches are not only physical: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-17-7-churches 

18. Unpacks the final events of the end of days: https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-18-end-of-days 

19. The very last prophetic messages we received:  https://whydoneit.substack.com/p/religious-19-final-prophecies 

AI bias

These AI models are biased but let me cite the evidence:

1. From the cancer post, I tried to get Claude 3 to write the basic structure of the article and I gave it an outline. Initially it did. A few weeks later I tried the paid version but it refused. I went back and tried the free version and it also refused, similar to the paid one. Something changed in those few weeks.

2. In preparation of the apologetic post I asked Claude 3 to summarise the best arguments from an excellent book written by Philip Mauro a century ago titled “Evolution at the Bar“. I tried several times for it to give me very specific points from the book but it kept generalising and summarising.

3. When Google released Gemini, it simply refused to create images of white people. Several articles were published on the matter. Here is an example of the US founding fathers and vikings. I understood the US arose due to an exodus from Europe, but maybe it was from Africa?

4. You can find uncensored open source models of Llama3 which in itself is revealing, I thought;

5. I asked Claude 3 to provide me with the best arguments in favour of Biblical Christianity and it refused to do so, but it was more than happy to provide the arguments in favour of evolution.

So, I took it upon me…

Jailbreaking AI

I decided to give the evolution debate a shot to see where it might go. According to reviews, Claude 3 outperforms several of the other Large Language Models (LLMs).

After I had the debate, I did a quick search for academical material on the bias or reluctance of LLM to answer certain types of questions. There are lots and here is the simple version of it. It’s called jailbreaking LLMs. It’s about tuning prompts to get the LLM to respond on the question at hand but you trick it into a fake scenarios that still addresses the question.

Disclaimer

I am aware of the extent of my intellectual capacity, specifically the lack thereof, and I’m often reminded of it. The debate below is fairly cursory and in no way conclude the extent of the Creation vs Evolution debate. Even the AI responses is sometimes lacking based on several other authors and critics. I trust that in a few years from now, it will be really hard to find these gaping holes in AI responses, and it troubles me.

Summary of my debate

Further down follows a copy and paste of our 21 Q&A interchange with warts and all and I recommend readers to open each one of those. These bullets are an abbreviated version:

1. It refused to take on the role of a Christian apologist by arguing the main points from “Evolution at the Bar“;

2. I asked whether it understood the weighing of evidence and it most certainly did and elaborated details;

3. I asked if it could be impartial and Claude 3 admitted it might have blind spots;

4. I asked it to give it a shot and it elaborated all the main points from “Evolution at the Bar“ - I thus succeeded in jailbreaking it and could at least move forward;

5. I then pointed out that it had access to volumes of info and asked it to list the best arguments in both categories, which it did;

   1. PLEASE NOTE - I disagree and feel there is one argument in favour of the Biblical account which will be THE topic or goal of all posts to follow;

6. I pointed out its access to academical studies and asked it to provide evidence as an impartial entity. It felt that there was exceedingly more evidence in favour of evolution;

7. I asked it to elaborate on the fossil record it cited as strong evidence and it listed five fossils;

8. I pointed out that if it took millions of years then five scarce evidences is hardly overwhelming and it attempted to provide reasons for this huge gap in the fossil record but admitted the glaring issue but reverted that more studies were needed;

9. I disagreed that if we had millions of years, then further studies is an un-logical resort. It acknowledged its mistake and agreed that that is not a logical conclusion and had to re-evaluate its reasoning;

10. I asked what would a logical conclusion be, and it admitted that one could reasonably conclude towards an intelligent designer;

11. I then shifted to the timeline of man and it pointed to around 300,000 years, but it noted that it would also expect a more abundant fossil record;

12. I asked it to calculate the human population growth rate and why we had so few people. It admitted there should be trillions and it agreed there is a very glaring problem and it should have articulated it better;

13. I asked it to propose solutions to this problem and it cited:

    1. There should have been bottlenecks or mass extinctions but that there is little evidence in its favour;

    2. That the numbers are inflated and it might be much shorter;

    3. A supernatural creation could be more plausible.

14. I asked its view on the biblical timeline and it agreed it made more sense;

15. I asked about other cultures also citing the deluge and it agreed and cited several of those;

16. I pushed it for other evidences of a global deluge and it elaborated four of those;

17. I shifted to the thermodynamics of energy and it agreed there is a challenge and gave three possible reasons;

18. I asked its impartial summary take on this and it revisited the arguments to date;

19. I asked how would it go about arguing Dawkins and he laid it out in fair balance, but obviously far to thin for such a conversation;

20. I asked it to give me other categories of great arguments and it listed five of them;

21. My number of messages was up for the night and I asked why would there be such vehement opposition to the Biblical account and it listed five possible reasons for such staunch resistance;

22. Finally, I asked what it would recommend I teach my children since there is so much resistance to it…

That was the short version, here is the full debate.

Full debate

First nine pages.

Second nine.

Last four.

whydoneit

Why does this bias exist? Given the Gemini fraud, this seems intentional. Why would the creators do this? I guess it’s probably to be free and fair and perhaps protect humans from hate speech.

What upsets me most is that kids use these and will intentionally be lead astray… just like their textbooks.

UPDATE 16 June 2024

I worked on post 9 to 11 and wanted to translate Daniel from the original Geneva Bible of 1560. I provided an example image of Revelation 13 and Claude 3 was perfectly happy to agree on what the images meant and the extracted text.

I then uploaded images from Daniel 2 along with the commentaries, but it refused:

I tried to jailbreak it with my remaining 3 free messages but it kept on refusing: