Evolutionists refuse Mastropaolo's "Life Science Prize" challenge (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Claim CA343:
- Many prominent evolutionists have declined to participate in Joseph 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
CreationWiki response:
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
The author complains about all sorts of things in the challenge, including the venue. Joseph Mastropaolo does not say that a courtroom is needed to debate evidence; that's just where he wants his debate to be. The author also complains about the fact that all evidence must be calibrated, which he says only applies to equipment. The dictionary definition of calibrate is: "To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard." Although the word is often used to describe calibration of equipment, it does not just apply to equipment. Then, because Mastropaolo lists all the people who have "dodged" the chance to debate with him, he labels Mastropaolo a crackpot.
The author makes a poor comparison with the other case, as it is possible to clearly demonstrate the Earth's curvature using just science. One cannot, however, demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution without making naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions about the history of life. If someone disagrees with that, then why don't they just make an easy $20,000 and prove him wrong?
Note that the author may want to change "legal" to "legally". And obviously, this is not intended to be a standard court case, which is why Mastropaolo challenged the scientific community to a debate rather than suing the state.
Where does the author get the idea that this was an equivalent challenge? The McLean v. Arkansas case was never intended to be a debate between creation science and evolution, but rather a standard court case to see whether teaching creation science in schools is constitutional. The ruling was that it was unconstitutional based on the Constitution, not unscientific based on the scientific evidence.
Yes, Mastropaolo disagrees with an atheistic, evolution-based religion. Note the difference between disagreement with and hostility to a belief. Mastropaolo, after being dodged by hundreds of people and groups, has good reason to be confident that he is right.
| ||||||||||||||
