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.
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.
