Keith Devens .com - Weblog: Debate Dodgers

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Debate Dodgers

This is AWESOME. Evolution’s Debate Dodgers

Many evolutionists make a habit of claiming that evolution is ‘science’ and creation is ‘religion.’ This simplistic slogan is apparently meant to justify their refusal to put their own beliefs and presuppositions on the line. Apparently, their beliefs won’t stoop to the same rigorous analysis they demand for any idea that threatens the crumbling walls of evolutionary dogma with such scientific concepts as sound logic, empirical data, and objective analysis.

To put a finer point on the matter, a challenge has gone out from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo,[1] suggesting that an evolutionist individual or organization put his/their money where his/their mouth is, and show up for a debate...

They have a growing list of evolutionists who refuse to debate. Though, I wouldn't put $10,000 of my own money up, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to. So, the terms of the debate seem geared against making people want to debate. So I'm really not sure whether it's cool, or silly.

Permalink | 5 Comments | Tags: Religion, Science | id 4658

02:07 (utc-5)

Comments

Sean wrote:

If they are so confident that evolution is truly scientific and creation is simply religion then it should be an easy $10,000 profit.

As the link says...
If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.

And who decides, a "mutually agreeable superior court judge from the state, and does so based solely upon the preponderance of evidence.

What do they have to lose if both parties agree on the judge, and evolution is such a "scientific" fact?

∴ Sean | 13-Jan-2004 2:14am est | #3751

Yeah, but you are staking $10,000 of your cash to spend time arguing with someone. I mean you can do that online for free.

Update on this... it looks like they realized it was silly, since the page has been taken down.

By "silly", I don't necessarily mean nonsensical or irrational or stupid. I mean mostly that the challenge's original intent backfired, as it was more likely to generate negative opinion (even from usual supporters like me) than it was to generate positive opinion or serious debate.

As for being serious, the whole excercise seemed very unserious to me, as I don't think that the originators of this "challenge" seriously expected anyone to accept.

∴ Keith | 22-Jan-2004 3:35am est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #3796

152.163.252.71 wrote:

I should point out that you are simply speculating as to why it was removed from the site.

∴ 152.163.252.71 | 22-Jan-2004 6:35pm est | #3799

Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:

The Life Science Prize was not discontinued, it was moved to a permanent site: http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html.
<I don't think that the originators of this "challenge" seriously expected anyone to accept.> I am serious and have had my $10,000 ready to hand the judge for 3.7 years. I have searched the planet in vain for an evolution scientist (N>500) and must conclude that they are extinct if they ever existed. There is a standing reward of $1000 for one. Please find one. The mini-trial will be the quickest and easiest $10,000 I ever earned because evolution is nonexistent, always has been and always will be.
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach.

∴ Joseph Mastropaolo | 1-Jan-2006 6:16pm est | #8941

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

**bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
"text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

RSS feed RSS feed for Keith's Weblog
Atom feed Atom feed for Keith's Weblog
Weblog archive
Recent comments
on 4 posts