Creation
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(About the Life Science Prize Challenge)
AFTER DR. HAWKING DEFAULTED FOR THE SECOND TIME (#20 & #195) DR. MASTROPAOLO AND KARL PRIEST CEASED CHALLENGING TRUE BELIEVERS IN EVOLUTIONISM (9-21-15). THE POINT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MADE. WHEN CONFRONTED BY FACTS OF CREATION, THE FANTASIES OF EVOLUTIONISM EVAPORATE.
NOTE: THE LIFE SCIENCE PRIZE has also been referred to as the LIFE SCIENCE TRIAL and LITERAL GENESIS TRIAL.
Also see: History of the Debate Dodger list.
ABOUT THE CHALLENGE
A. What is The Life Science Prize Challenge (LSPC)?
Why do you issue the Life Science Prize Challenge?
Who is eligible to contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge?
Who do you challenge?
Where will the debate be held?
B. What is counted as evidence?
What does the winner receive?
How is the winner determined?
Who determines the winner?
C. What happens when there is a default?
Can a Defaulter change his mind?
Why hasn't anyone accepted the challenge?
Why do famous evolutionists refuse to debate?
How can you claim victory if no one will contend for the LSP?
What if your challenge is totally ignored?
ABOUT THE COURT/JUDGE
A. Haven't courts of law have declared that creationism is not science?
Don't you think only science experts can judge a trial like you propose?
Was not the Microsoft trial was a legal issue about monopoly?
Isn't the legal system flawed?
Doesn't the O. J. Simpson trial prove your idea is not good?
B. How is the judge chosen?
Why use a courthouse?
Why won't you give details about the proposed trial?
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Why are you so ardent about exposing evolutionism?
How do you claim to be qualified to debate this issue?
Why won't you be more specific?
Why did you not respond to Ed Brayton's Blog?
Why don't you enter into an Internet written debate?
Don't you fear Dr. Richard Dawkins?
B. Is it reasonable to think someone would have $10,000 to use to contend?
How about matching a larger sum of $500K deposited with a law firm?
Hasn't peer review submission settled this issue?
Isn't the general public ill equipped to understand a debate like this?
C. Didn't God use evolution?
Can't we just say evolution "created"?
ABOUT THE CHALLENGE
What is The Life Science Prize Challenge (LSPC)?
The Life Science Prize Challenge is a litmus test to distinguish bona fide scientists, those willing to contend, from propaganda essayists, those unwilling to contend.
Why do you issue the Life Science Prize Challenge?
We do our best to help evolutionists dispel their brass and bluff image. For the honor of evolutionists worldwide, we exhort them to contend.
The Life Science Prize Challenge is 100% positive with no negatives for creation. It also is not "Karl & Joe's 'Debate Dodgers' campaign." It is a scientific evidence challenge to those perceived as all bluff and no science.
In a conference of scientists, if someone makes a claim without evidence, he is challenged to present the evidence or be quiet. The Life Science Prize Challenge does the same thing in the most professional of scientific traditions. If an evolutionist bashes creation by saying creation is religion and evolution is science, that person is challenged with the Life Science Prize. If they do not accept, then they are put on the list like those making claims in a science meeting without supporting scientific evidence, the No Scientific Evidence List or the Debate Dodgers List.
An idea ought to survive or die based on its evidence, not its pounds of essay pages.
The Life Science Prize, puts an end to the endless propaganda arguments of evolutionists, which are all that evolutionists have and which are a black hole for wasting our time and making us accomplish nothing.
Biology is science. Evolution is ancient vitalism superstition as a religious belief and that violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The public needs to organize and make evolutionists toe the science line and not let them draw dissenters into endless propaganda arguments.
The choice is: indulge the ego of evolutionists and argue endlessly to no avail, or insist on science and win every contest.
Who is eligible to contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge?
Anyone who is a true believer in evolutionism. All personnel of an organization or university are eligible. Any number may participate and collaborate.
Who do you challenge?
We only challenge those we feel are Propaganda Essayists. We expose those who feel comfortable proclaiming the validly of evolutionism when they can hide behind a newspaper, magazine, or journal article. When it comes to a forum where their beliefs can be challenged and where they can be held accountable for their statements they hide under an academic or publication banner rock.
We have invited worldwide bar none. So far, they explicitly, or with silence implicitly, default.
Where will the debate be held?
The venue is a court house.
What is counted as evidence?
Evidence must be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. The preponderance of evidence prevails. Any indirect evidence must be calibrated to the standard to permit evaluation for objectivity, validity and reliability.
The protocol for the presentation of evidence is also scientific, that is, clear, concise and precise.
There will be abundant scientific evidence.
What does the winner receive?
The rules are like those for a prize sporting event: the winner takes all. At the end of the debate, the judge hands the winner both checks.
How is the winner determined?
The evolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge. The challenging devolutionist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge. If the evolutionist proves evolution is science, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000. If the devolutionist proves that evolution is not science, then the devolutionist is awarded the $20,000.
Who determines the winner?
The judge is a superior court judge.
What happens when there is a default?
Evolutionists are called on and challenged on their bragging bluffs. Everyone sees that they reneged on the contest their bragging instigated. When someone calls for a contest, then declines to compete, they have lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that, then you reneged on the contest your bragging instigated. When someone calls for a contest, then declines to compete, he has lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that.
Evolutionists are exposed as indoctrinating the public with non-science nonsense. It clearly means that they agree that evolution exists only in your imagination.
Evolutionists must admit that they are peddlers of an ancient vitalism superstition called, "evolution," that has no scientific evidence and is a state supported religion in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Evolutionists also admit that: (1) evolution has been exposed as pagan Cebelese religion as practiced in Greece 2,500 years ago, (2) evolution is completely absent in the universe today, always has been, always will be, (3) every item associated with humans, animals and plants are creations, always have been, always will be, (4) creation is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be, and (5) they refuse to defend their ideas in a debate for $10,000.00.
Furthermore, if evolutionist do not contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge, then they leave that evidence undisputed and implicitly agree with it by default. They know well the disgrace of defaulting and being put on the Debate Dodgers List.
Can a Defaulter change his mind?
We offer extensions in time and open invitations to reconsider.
Why hasn't anyone accepted the challenge?
Although we are ready with real money, a site, and a judge no one has accepted the challenge. How could they when they are limited to objectivity, validity, reliability and calibration? If they had anything they would debate and attempt to humiliate us to the world. It would be a major blow to their adversary (creationists) if they won. The catch is that it works both ways. The Life Science Prize Challenge, puts an end to the endless propaganda arguments, which are all that evolutionists have and which are a black hole for wasting our time and making us accomplish nothing."
Evolutionists have no scientific data and never will. They invert reality and proclaim an antiscience propaganda. We should expose them with evidence, not imitate them with speculations and propaganda. Evidence settles issues. Speculations and propaganda feed endless arguments.
Evolutionists will talk for a year but no one will contend unless they can talk an opponent into a situation where evolutionists can cheat. Cheating is their only chance to win.
We have $10,000 ready to place into escrow if evolutionists will match it. Then, in a public debate before a judge, Dr. Mastropaolo and the best representative of evolutionism will settle the matter once and for all. The standards will be objective scientific facts.
The funeral dirge of evolutionism is loudly playing and Dr. Mastropaolo is ready to cover the grave evolutionism dug for itself. Will evolutionists sit on the porch and howl with the pups or be big dogs and try to bite the undertaker?
Dr. Mastropaolo is putting $10,000 where his mouth is and after nearly two years he has not found an evolutionist worldwide, bar none, that will do the same.
The debate over the truth, or untruth, of evolutionism is a crescendo that is ready for the grand finale. We are offering evolutionists a chance to silence creationists. Of course, evolutionists must be willing to risk watching evolutionism destroyed once and for all.
The game is over. Evolutionists have been found out. The jig is up. Evolution is a zillion times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin's genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together.
Keep your ears tuned to the "No Sympathy Symphony" and watch evolutionists dance.
Why do famous evolutionists refuse to debate?
Evolutionists are ordered not to debate and why they must not contend for the Life Science Prize. They are eminently unqualified and would waste their $10,000 entry fee.
A vocal proponent of refusing debates, Dr. Richard Dawkins has not published a peer reviewed article in 25+ years, if ever. His late chum, Dr. Stephen Gould, did not either. They are peas in a pod, both quack essayists on a 2,500 year old pagan religion masquerading as scientists. Neither one of them have ever presented a scintilla of scientific evidence. If you find anywhere on the planet one peer reviewed article in support of evolution published in a science journal with objective, valid, reliable, calibrated data by Richard Dawkins, please let us know.
Propagandists like Richard Dawkins are out of touch with reality and hallucinate that evolution is true. Such hallucinations so withdrawn from reality are the medical dictionary definition of psychosis. His default on the Life Science Prize Challenge did not go far enough. For the sake of the welfare of his endowed chair he also should seek, at the earliest, medical help to prevent hardship for his family. We hope he gets well soon.
Dr. Dawkins is like the little boy hiding behind his Mommy's skirt-tail and saying, "My Mommy told me not to fight." He hides behind the pages of Free Inquiry and makes excuses why he will not debate.
Dawkins can try to spin it a lot of ways, but soon must face up to the fact that evolutionism is spinning out of control.
Evolutionists have no scientific evidence. None. And that is the reason they do not want to debate. Without evidence, they can't win unless they fix the contest. Given an honest judge, they would make of themselves a laughingstock. They have everything to lose because you could not score a single honest point. Their only rational choice is default.
See Don't You Fear Dr. Richard Dawkins? below.
How can you claim victory if no one will contend for the Life Science Prize?
Evolutionists have no evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not pointed shoes, nothing. When they wisely default on the Life Science challenge it proves they are all bluff and no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch.
Now, you say you have a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but you refuse to put you money where your mouth is. Or you say you have a runner who can beat our runner or a jumper who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let's put them on a level playing field and see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles the issue with finality. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air on web sites.
If they are so sure of their position they would debate.
What if your challenge is totally ignored?
Silence is not "golden"--in this case silence is YELLOW. See FAQ: How can you claim victory if no one will contend for the Life Science Prize?
ABOUT THE COURT/JUDGE
Haven't courts of law have declared that creationism is not science?
Previous court decisions are not relevant to the Lfe Science Prize Challenge.
See http:www.pathlights.com/ce_encylopedia/22sch03.htm
Also see http://nwcreation.net/trials.html
Don't you think only science experts can judge a trial like you propose?
Judges are not experts in all the fields upon which they judge or they'd certainly be dismissed by one of the lawyers. Experts give the TESTIMONY. The judge is to be neutral. Experts would have a built-in bias to judge for their own side.
Judges, not computer experts, tried the Microsoft case. This trial court would examine objective scientific evidence for validity, reliability, calibration, and reach a verdict based upon the preponderance of evidence.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. Doesn't a debate involve two experts? Isn't a judge trained to weigh evidence? If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, isn't it easy for a child to see, let alone a judge? Or are evolutionists afraid a judge would see that what is presented to school children as evidence doesn't meet the qualifications?
An evolutionist may say, "Sorry, but assessment of evidence relevant to this debate requires scientific expertise, not judicial expertise." In other words, he does not want the court judge to judge the debate. So, we explain why the judge is imminently qualified: A judge hears the biomechanical evidence in an auto accident without being an expert biomechanist. He hears ballistics evidence in a murder trial without being an expert in ballistics or murder. He hears evidence on endangered species of plants and animals without being an expert in botany or zoology. In a criminal case, he knows how to score the evidence beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case on the preponderance of evidence. Obviously, those are the qualifications of choice for a debate scored on the evidence.
That is why the court judge is the best person to judge the debate. That shows that scientific expertise is not relevant. If it were, then we would need an enormous supply of judges in an enormous number of expert areas. Now, the evolutionists have no excuse. The Life Science Prize Challenge has the perfect judge in the perfect facility, the Old Court House, with the perfect rules for judging the evidence. Now, they can't hide behind some lame excuse and they must default because they have no evidence and they'll lose their money if they are dumb enough to debate.
The judge must be competent and fair. That goes without saying in any event like this. Because it will be fair is why they won't contend. They can't win a fair contest. No matter what concessions are made, none of them will contend. They are an 800 lb man unable to get out of bed complaining about the judges for a marathon. He will insist on the finish line for him being directly under the starting line. When the crane lowers him to the starting line he'll be the first to finish without ever having to take a step.
Just say: "It will be fair," and they won't contend. They can't win a fair contest and they know it.
Was not the Microsoft trial a legal issue about monopoly?
This is an attempt to gloss over how that decision had to be determined. Did Microsoft design Windows so the computer would crash or have its modem disabled if someone took out the Microsoft browser, Internet Explorer, and put in Netscape? Was Windows purposefully designed to militate against application programs that were not by Microsoft? The judge presiding at the Microsoft trial had to preside over scientific issues probably more technical than those in a creation vs evolution trial.
Isn't the legal system flawed?
Someone may pretend there are flaws which damn the legal system, the Life Science Prize Challenge, and the method of choice to objectively settle a culture's critical disputes. Their pretense reveals a lack of knowledge and understanding about the American and scientific systems based upon rules of law and evidence.
Doesn't the O. J. Simpson trial prove your idea is not good?
The example lacks some accuracy. O. J. was acquitted in the criminal trial because police stupidity did not permit conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In the civil trial, which is on preponderance of evidence, O. J. was convicted. The police failed, not the judge.
There were two O. J. trials, one criminal, one civil. There were two different purposes, two different trials, two different sets of rules, two different verdicts, both correct and appropriate. The criminal must be convicted "beyond reasonable doubt." The civil trial is determined on the "preponderance of evidence." O. J. was rightly acquitted as a criminal because there was reasonable doubt. He was rightly convicted in the civil trial because the preponderance of evidence was clearly for conviction. Justice was done according to the rules. There are no "different interpretations," no "different conclusions." The system worked as specified by law.
The Life Science Prize Challenge is determined on the "preponderance of evidence," like a civil trial. As in any trial there are rules for evidence. The Prize's rules are that the evidence be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. These have been defined in the science literature and will be presented to the court. The judge will admit evidence accordingly and render a judgment based on the preponderance of the evidence as he does in any civil trial. It is all straight forward, firmly established, thoroughly tested, no tricks, no excuses, ideal to separate hot air from evidence and to settle it in a scholarly, unbiased, professional manner. Evidence, not presentation, is what counts. The legal apparatus is eminently suited for the task.
How is the judge chosen?
Whichever judge is available must confirm that he can be completely objective, that he thoroughly understands the rules for counting evidence, that he will strictly rule according to those rules, and he must be acceptable to both sides.
The judge would be a Superior Court judge that would be able to take the case without bias, which is the usual condition for a trial. In addition, the judge would be acceptable to both sides prior to the trial, which is also the usual condition for a trial. There will be no impediment on this issue.
Courts have rules on recusing judges. If necessary, those rules shall apply.
Why use a courthouse?
Judges rule in courthouses.
Why won't you give details about the proposed trial?
Most questions are answered in the FAQ section. If anyone places the required $10,000 in escrow we will be happy to negotiate details. Contenders must confirm they are ready to contend pending some clarification of some details.
MISCELLANEOUS
Why are you so ardent about exposing evolutionism?
The idea of evolution was invented 2,500 years ago in Greek mythology. Darwin plagiarized, Haeckel falsified, Huxley propagandized, the public schools internalized, the kids have been psychoticized, and any alternative is censored. Evolutionists say, "Evolution is a fact. The theories may vary, but evolution is a fact." When anyone asks for the evidence, all that is given is propaganda essays with not one scintilla of proof. That is why no evolutionist will contend for the Life Science Prize Challenge.
Is evolution a fact? Evolution is not a fact, it is not a law, it is not a theory, it is not a hypothesis, it is not a fantasy. The cow jumped over the moon is a fantasy because a cow can jump a low fence. The grass ate the cow is an inverted fantasy. That living things die and rot or putrefy to a pile of chemicals is a fact but that a pile of chemicals evolved to living things is an inverted fantasy as far from reality as the human mind can go and that is what the medical dictionary calls psychosis.
All things made by humans are creations as are all things made by plants and animals. The entire universe is a creation and nothing in the universe is evolving, never has and never will. The scientific mathematical score is more than a zillion (more than 10^4,000,000) to zero in favor of creation.
The sense of justice of all thinking people should be aroused about such widespread crime against the most fundamental law of the land? People everywhere should be involved in organizing parents, students and law enforcement nationwide to enforce the Constitution?
How do you claim to be qualified to debate this issue?
Dr. Mastropaolo has published in peer reviewed science journals and has concluded on the basis of objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated evidence that evolution exists nowhere in the universe, never has and never will.
Why won't you be more specific?
Evolutionists have been given the rules in writing. They might pretend not to understand. They may also pretend that there may be something unfair.
The Life Science Prize Challenge is for people who are competent in simple English sentences and who know the difference between right and wrong.
Why did you not respond to Ed Brayton's Blog (http://stcynic.blogspot.com Key word JoMo)?
Ed Brayton's Blog site is an excellent example of the attempts by evolutionists to engage in a fog of never ending chatter. Ed Brayton was challenged to contend for the Life Science Prize. It chose to hide in the bog of his Blog.
Even before he was challenged Mr. Brayton began to set up excuses for his pending default and automatic inclusion on the Debate Dodger List consisting of dreamers who are forced to admit that evolution exists only in their very active imaginations.
Mr. Brayton claims to have challenged Kent Hovind to debate for a million dollars. If Mr. Brayton has $1 million to challenge Dr. Hovind, then he should have $10,000 to accept the challenge to contend for the Life Science Prize.
If there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution then evolutionists, like Blayton, should have no fear of losing $10,000. Perhaps 10,000 avid atheists would be willing to lose one dollar each. Or 1000 deceived Darwinists will chip in the price of a pizza to provide the $10,000 for the evolutionist side. Then the big risk to the true believers in Darwin's delusion is that of being exposed as indoctrinating the public with the non-science nonsense of evolutionism.
Mr. Brayton tried to hide behind Michael Ruse. That will not work because Ruse is a propaganda essayist and was thereby forced to default (he is number 26 on the Debate Dodger's List).
Another excuse Mr. Blayon offered was that the issue has already been settled in court cases such as McLean v Arkansas or Edwards v Aguillard. According to Mr. Brayton's logic all he would have to do is show up and win the Life Science Prize Challenge by claiming precedence. What is keeping him from trying?
Ed Brayton is just another evolutionist who bragged and was challenged on his bragging. When Mr. Brayton reneged on the contest his bragging instigated he defaulted and admitted evolution only exists in Never-Never Land. When a man calls for a contest, then declines to compete, he has lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that.
Evolutionists have no evidence, not Star Wars, not swords, not pitchforks, not pointed shoes, nothing. When they wisely default on the Life Science Challenge it proves they are all bluff and no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch.
He says he has a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but refuses to put money where his mouth is. He says he has a runner who can beat our runner or a jumper who can jump higher than our jumper. Well, let's put them on a level playing field and see. The proof is in the results of the contest. The contest settles the issue with finality. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air on web sites.
If Ed Brayton is so sure of his position he would debate.
Why don't you enter into an Internet written debate?
That alternative is unruly, endless hot air arguments.
Don't You Fear Dr. Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins wants to be the Devil's Chaplain. The Devil would be better advised to recruit the juvenile gang leader down the block because the kid has brains and fights. Dawkins would not only fail with Faust, he would make a mess with a five-year-old Shirley Temple.
Give Dawkins credit--his ambitions are not humble, but megalomania is not a synonym for intelligence. Dawkins would like to clear the public square of all religious believers. However, the mega ersatz religion is evolution. Multitudes will give a hand with that one. If he means genuine religion, why didn't he do it when given the chance with a $10,000 reward?
Dawkins does not want parents to have the right to instruct and recruit children into their own religious faith. The first deprived parents would be the evolutionists, the wildest, most incredible tall tale tellers of infinite inverted fantasies ever conceived out of thin air.
Dawkins brings to mind a 600 lb. glutton confined to a hospital bed raving that he is world's champion at the 100m dash. The butterball would need a crane just to show up for the race. The Devil's Chaplain is all mouth and no guts, a very short circuit.
Actually he is no Devil's Chaplain? That position requires the wit of a Screwtape. Rehashed essays barely qualify for a footman's job on the coach to Pleasure Island. Richard Dawkins, a cipher in science, is # 14 on the Debate Dodgers List for the Life Science Prize.
See Dawkins Does a Dance.
Is it reasonable to think someone would have $10,000 to use to contend?
The amount of $10,000 is a reachable sum and still a sum that most people consider large.
For a university, perhaps ten of the university's best science professors could each get 100 of their students to chip in the price of a pizza to provide the $10,000 for the evolutionist side. An organization like the National Science Teachers Association has around 55,000 members who could afford about 18 cents ($0.18) each to provide the $10,000 for their side.
If there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution then evolutionists should have no fear of losing $10,000.
How about matching a larger sum of $500,000 deposited with a law firm?
Like evolution, the $500,000 is imaginary and the law firm is imaginary. By contrast our rules are real, the $10,000 is real and the escrow provision is real. If real, any bank will give change and after the $10,000 is lost, we'll give the evolutionist a chance to lose the other $490,000.00.
We think evolution is not science and have a real $10,000 to prove we are sincere. If anyone thinks he has science to back evolution and $10,000 to prove his sincerity then let's place both amounts in escrow and, as gentlemen, begin serious discussion of agreeable conditions.
The funds must be on deposit. No promissory notes.
Hasn't peer review submission settled this issue?
Peer reviewed science articles published in scientific journals have concluded that evolution exists nowhere in the universe, never has and never will. The problem is that evolutionists use propaganda essays as peer reviewed articles.
Isn't the general public ill equipped to understand a debate like this?
Evolutionists constantly harp on how strong the evidence is for evolution*. Several polls (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2):118–123, 1999 ) show that the large majority of Americans do not accept evolution as factual. It's the average people evolutionists have to win--or do they intend to pick on little kids in school and brainwash them to "think" like Hitler Youth.**
The general public is equipped to understand that a car can rust and rot to a pile of chemicals but a pile of chemicals will never assemble itself to a car without intelligent engineering. A living cell can rot or putrefy to a pile of chemicals but a pile of chemicals will never assemble itself to a living cell without mega intelligent engineering. A seven year old can understand that.
*Two examples from the NCSE:
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. (AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (2002))
A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. (AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5322_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp#aaas5
**Education played a very important part in Nazi Germany in trying to cultivate a loyal following for Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazis were aware that education would create loyal Nazis by the time they reached adulthood. The Hitler Youth had been created for post-school activities and schools were to play a critical part in developing a loyal following for Hitler - indoctrination and the use of propaganda were to be a common practice in Nazi schools and the education system. Subjects underwent a major change in schools. Some of the most affected were History and Biology. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazis Education.htm
Can't we just say evolution "created"?
"Created by evolution" is vitalism, which was disproven by the experiments, never overturned, of Redi in 1665, Pasteur in 1864 and Tyndall in 1877 (see The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination, 2003, pp. 9-12).
Didn't God use evolution?
Creationists with differing perceptions would do well to substantiate their speculations with scientific evidence: objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated data. In the absence of evidence, they should be honest enough to admit that their speculation may not be more compelling than someone else's speculation. They also should admit that the pressing assignment is to obtain the evidence.
|
