The theory of evolution allows us to reduce the huge complexity of biology to simple starting conditions with a relatively simple set of rules. Regardless of whether we have to allegedly have to add exceptions to our theory to explain missing links, the information of those exceptions is small compared to the huge amount of the complexity of biology we can explain with evolution.
Creationism and ID add MORE complexity while deliberately avoiding paying us back that complexity with predictions and furthermore assume the existence of an entire (possibly human-like) intelligent agent without suggesting any reduction of this agent to simple starting conditions.
No doubt evolution is a simplified rules set, but in empirical tests, as well as in historical interpretation of data, it has many failings which, as Luke has pointed out for certain creationists, is something that evolutionary believers shy away from, hiding in self-deception in order to keep their beliefs safe.
But this is not a post about creation/evolution—my point was that his use of creationists was a poor choice because (a) creationism is believed by a majority of Americans, and so will turn them off from his main point, and (b) the idea that the idea is settled scientifically is dubious, since origins science is more interpretation than demonstrable fact, and both sides of that debate have strong ideological reasons to believe and scientific reasons to doubt that they ignore.
(a) creationism is believed by a majority of Americans, and so will turn them off from his main point,
Can people who believe in a God that benevolently created us and looks over us even come to consider the possibility of existential dangers or a human-steered Singularity? Frankly, if they are creationists, I think they are largely irrelevant to a Singularity discussion until they shed such beliefs.
The theory of evolution allows us to reduce the huge complexity of biology to simple starting conditions with a relatively simple set of rules. Regardless of whether we have to allegedly have to add exceptions to our theory to explain missing links, the information of those exceptions is small compared to the huge amount of the complexity of biology we can explain with evolution.
Creationism and ID add MORE complexity while deliberately avoiding paying us back that complexity with predictions and furthermore assume the existence of an entire (possibly human-like) intelligent agent without suggesting any reduction of this agent to simple starting conditions.
No doubt evolution is a simplified rules set, but in empirical tests, as well as in historical interpretation of data, it has many failings which, as Luke has pointed out for certain creationists, is something that evolutionary believers shy away from, hiding in self-deception in order to keep their beliefs safe.
But this is not a post about creation/evolution—my point was that his use of creationists was a poor choice because (a) creationism is believed by a majority of Americans, and so will turn them off from his main point, and (b) the idea that the idea is settled scientifically is dubious, since origins science is more interpretation than demonstrable fact, and both sides of that debate have strong ideological reasons to believe and scientific reasons to doubt that they ignore.
Can people who believe in a God that benevolently created us and looks over us even come to consider the possibility of existential dangers or a human-steered Singularity? Frankly, if they are creationists, I think they are largely irrelevant to a Singularity discussion until they shed such beliefs.