Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court

[JesusHChrist]

The Creationists just won't go away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar...-evolution

I suppose getting their asses kicked in a real courtroom in the Dover trial wasn't good enough.

[frankiej]

Hmm, seems like an easy 10 grand profit...

[downbeatplumb]

I liked this.

Mastropaolo believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically. "It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction," he said.

He thinks that evolution has a direction!
He obviously has no knowledge of he theory at all.
Should be an easy win for someone.

[Cyberman]

I'd like to see the ground rules for this. It smacks too much of Hovind's $250,000 challenge, in which he gets to define what evolution means, what evidence is allowable and with a dubiously vague mention of an "impartial" committee of his own choosing. Not to mention the Dawkins Caveat of giving creationism undeserved reflected credibility on a shared platform.

For me, though, this is the best bit:

"The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same," Mastropaolo said. "We can read the transcript and not have have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution."

In a word: evolution.

[Tonus]

I'd like to see the ground rules for this.

I know that he's asking his opponent to put up $10,000 as well. They could host it on TruTV for all the good it will do in "settling" the issue in the mind of a guy who thinks "everything is devolving."

[Minimalist]

"They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said.

But apparently this jesus freak asshole is not bright enough to know that there is NO scientific evidence he can produce to support his fairy tale.

Interesting. I guess there really is nothing quite as stupid as a creationist.

[JesusHChrist]

Interesting. I guess there really is nothing quite as stupid as a creationist.

Creationism is certainly idiotic; and yet this guy has a PhD, so he has some amount of brain power. Just goes to show how powerful the religion mind virus is in controlling its slaves.

[Cyberman]

His PhD is in kinesiology, but that's presumably enough to impress the willingly gullible.

[Rev. Rye]

Heard of it. It's on the Talk.Origins list.

Claim CA343:
Many prominent evolutionists have declined to participate in Mastropaolo's "Life Science Prize" challenge. According to the terms of this challenge, the evolutionist and creationist each put $10,000 in escrow; they present their evidence in a courthouse to a mutually agreeable trial court judge; the judge decides which side has the science and which is religion; the side declared science wins the $20,000.
Source:
Mastropaolo, Joseph. 2003. Life science prize. http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html
Response:

Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and you soon discover that the pig enjoys it. The challenge itself reveals that Mastropaolo is scientifically inept. (A scientist would know that one does not need a courtroom to debate evidence. And one term states that "Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated." Calibration applies to equipment, not evidence.) People who ignore the challenge are labeled "Debate Dodgers" who practice a "pagan Cebelese religion" (Brayton 2004). Such statements remove the challenge from the field of life science and place it squarely in the realm of crackpottery.

Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution, once accepted the challenge of another crackpot, John Hampden, to demonstrate the earth's curvature. Wallace did so, but Hampden's subsequent legal and other harassment caused Wallace to consider accepting the challenge a big mistake. (Raby 2001, 206-207)

The challenge is legal invalid. Two people cannot simply decide that a court of law will decide their case. Cases come to court only when one party sues another, and then they get no choice of judge.

An equivalent challenge has been met. The McLean vs. Arkansas case hinged on whether creationism is religion or science, and Judge Overton ruled that it is religion.

According to the challenge, religion is always the losing side, which makes Mastropaolo inappropriately hostile to religion.

Links:
Brayton, Ed. 2004 (1/13, 1/19, and 1/22). The JoMo Creationist Challenge. http://stcynic.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_s...9155391517 http://stcynic.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_s...1882316945 http://stcynic.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_s...3621065262
References:

Brayton, Ed. 2004 (Jan. 22). (see above)
Raby, Peter. 2001. Alfred Russel Wallace: A Life. New Jersy: Princeton University Press.

Further Reading:
Zimmerman, Michael. 2005. The Life Science Prize. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 25(5-6): 33-34.

[Something completely different]

A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

well......

clearly he is to lazy for a simple google search, or simply does this entire thing with the dishonest intention of gaining public attention.

cause:

http://nonsenseingenesis.org/