(This was written 8-15-02)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
I have read The Blind Watch Maker and other
of your shorter works. It is obvious you are probably the most prominent
of all living evolutionists. Do you really believe in evolutionism?
If so, on behalf of Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo I present you with the
following challenge.
This is the announcement of the Life Science
Prize. The rules are like those for a prize sporting event: the
winner takes all.
The evolutionist contestant puts $10,000
in escrow. This will be matched by a creation scientist for a total
of $20,000.
If the evolutionist proves evolution is
science and creation is religion he wins the $20,000. If the creation
scientist proves that creation is science and evolution is religion,
then he collects the $20,000.
The standards of evidence will be those
of science: objectivity, validity, reliability and calibration.
The preponderance of the evidence prevails.
Please contact me as soon as possible and
we shall begin working out the details for the debate.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karl Priest
(He replied 8-16-02)
The standards of evidence will be those of science
Ah, in that case you would have no objection to
the question being judged by the elected Members of the National
Academy of Sciences, the elected Fellows of the Royal Society, and
the set of winners of Nobel Prizes for Science.
Richard Dawkins
(This was written 8-19-02)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
Thank you for replying to the debate challenge.
I take it you are interested in accepting it and you wish to begin
negotiations. Dr. Mastropaolo's response follows.
>The rules are like those for a prize
sporting event<
In a prize fight, the judges are not former
world champions. They are people expert at judging the performances
at that event according to the rule book and their unbiased, honest
judgment. It is so for ice skating, gymnastics, diving and the other
sporting events requiring officiating.
If your objective is to have the same kind of honest, unbiased judging
at this event according to the rules for evidence and for deciding
a winner, then let us go forward. If your objective is to stack
the jury with evolutionists that will vote you the winner no matter
what evidence is presented, then count yourself in default on this
challenge.
Which is it?
Karl Priest
I do not have a record of a response from Dr. Dawkins.
(This was written 9-3-02)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
If you wish to continue to discuss the debate
challenge I respectfully request that you confirm your acceptance.
At that time we will begin negotiations on the details.
The only other option is to default. I would
rather you engage in a fair debate.
Sincerely,
Karl Priest
(He replied 9-4-02)
I get many letters from idiots like you, and I forget which one
you are. If you are the one with some damn fool bet of $10,000,
you hastily backed down when I sarcastically suggested that, because
you claimed to want a purely SCIENTIFIC debate, a jury of distinguished
SCIENTISTS would be appropriate!
Of course my suggestion was purely sarcastic. I
would never have wasted the time of those distinguished scientists.
They have better things to do with their time, and so have I. I
knew you would not accept my reasonable suggestion, exactly as you
did. I have a fixed policy of never doing debates with creationists
anyway, just as I’d never bother to debate with a Flat Earther.
The reason is simple. You Flat Earthers and Creationists need the
publicity. Scientists don’t. Every time a real scientist agrees
to go on a platform with an idiot like you, the idiot gains, because
some people in the audience see them on the platform together and
think (wrongly): “Well, if Professor So-and-So agrees to have
a debate with him, maybe there really is something to debate.”
There is nothing to debate. As you’ll discover
if you take the trouble to read the evidence. I suggest that you
do so. And now I have work to do. This correspondence is at an end.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
(This was written 9-4-02)
We have not backed down.
We've got $10,000 (we can use pounds if
the exchange rate is higher) to prove we are serious and ready to
debate.
So, hide behind your insults or step onto
a level playing field and take a chance of seeing everything you
stake your worldview upon is bogus.
Debate or default.
Karl Priest
(He replied 9-5-02)
You said you wanted a ‘scientific’ debate.
So I sarcastically took you at your word and suggested a jury of
the most distinguished scientists in our two countries. Exactly
as I foresaw, you promptly declined. If your condition for taking
part in a SCIENTIFIC debate is that you won’t have real SCIENTISTS
judging the result, that sounds like backing down to me.
Actually you didn’t need to back down. If
you’d had any intelligence you could easily have called my
bluff. As I explained in my last letter, I was only having a bit
of fun testing you, knowing full well you’d be terrified of
real scientists as judges. And gambling that you would be too stupid
to call my bluff! OF COURSE I would not REALLY ask those distinguished
scientists to waste their time. They would certainly not waste their
time on such a ridiculous circus.
>We've got $10,000 (we can use pounds if the exchange
rate is higher) to prove we are serious and ready to debate.
Do you really think I’d touch your lousy $10,000?
I can earn $10,000 for a single lecture in America. On Evolution!
As could the late Steve Gould. Long ago, I learned from him the
wisdom of not doing debates with people like you. The reason he
gave me then is the reason I passed on to you in my last letter.
You need the publicity and we don’t. We have real science
to get on with and spend our time on. You don’t.
I shall be publishing something on this whole matter
of ‘debates’ shortly, and I may well publish this whole
correspondence for the amusement of my readers. I shan’t ask
your permission, since there is no need to use your real name (it
wouldn’t make any difference: nobody’s ever heard of
you anyway).
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
(This was written 9-5-02)
Be sure you publish the following (and you may sign my name):
You, Dr. Dawkins are an intellectual coward.
You are scared to defend your faith in evolutionism on a level playing
field. You have defaulted out of fear.
Very sincerely,
Karl Priest
(He replied 9-6-02)
Oh YES, I shall be entirely happy to quote your
exact words. Readers will have no difficulty in identifying the
REAL intellectual coward, scared of a level playing field. Just
for the record, to make your position absolutely clear, could you
spell out yet again WHY you were scared to have (what you yourself
described as) a scientific judgment put into the hands of the leading
SCIENTISTS in the world? And readers might also be interested to
know whom, if not leading scientists, you WOULD regard as fair judges.
The Pope? (As you may know, he came out in favour of evolution in
1996).
The field of science keeps its playing field level
by the rather admirable system of anonymous peer-review. If you
have evidence that evolution is false, you are entirely at liberty
to submit a paper to the Editor of Nature, or Science, or the Journal
of Theoretical Biology, or The American Naturalist, or Biological
Reviews, or The Quarterly Review of Biology, or any of hundreds
of other reputable journals in which ordinary working scientists
publish their research. Do not fear that Editors will reject it
simply BECAUSE it opposes evolution. On the contrary, the journal
that published a paper which really DID discover a fallacy in evolution,
or convincing evidence against it, would have the scoop of the century,
in scientific terms. Editors would kill to get their hands on it.
So there’s a real challenge for you. In your
first letter to me, you claimed that “The standards of evidence
will be those of science: objectivity, validity, reliability and
calibration. The preponderance of the evidence prevails. “
OK, so why don’t you put it to the standard test of science?
Submit your evidence for publication in a scientific journal.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
(This was written 9-8-02)
Dr. Mastropaolo replies:
"We have. And the conclusion was that
you have no scientific evidence. None. And that is the reason that
you do not want to debate. Without evidence, you can't win unless
you fix the jury. Given an honest judge or jury, you would make
of yourself a laughingstock and that may turn off your endowed chair.
Take our advice and default. You have everything to lose because
you could not score a single honest point. Your only rational choice
is default."
Dr. Dawkins, I am appalled that a man who
represents the best of British academia is forced to lower himself
to that of a mocking school boy hiding behind his mommy's skirttails.
You have been called out. It is pitiful that you cannot accept a
simple challenge or be man enough to reject it honorably.
Debate or default.
Karl Priest
(He replied 9-9-02)
Who is Dr Mastropaolo? Which scientific journal
did he submit his evidence to? How could the ‘conclusion’
of such a submission to a scientific journal POSSIBLY be something
to do with ME? Whoever “Dr Mastropaolo” may be, he doesn’t
seem to have a very logical mind.
“Given an honest judge or jury.” But
the whole point in such matters is how do you CHOOSE the honest
judge or jury? Of COURSE it is obvious that either of us could FIX
a jury who would agree with us. What you need, if you are going
to pursue your quixotic scheme, is a way of choosing a qualified
jury that all reasonable, objective and non-partisan observers would
agree is immune to charges of fixing. If you were setting up a music
competition, you would find judges among distinguished musicians.
If you were setting up a painting competition, you would invited
world class painters to be the judges. In the same way, it seemed
entirely reasonable that a good way to guarantee an unfixed jury
in a scientific matter was to go for Nobel Prizewinners and Fellows
of National Academies of Science. Perhaps, since you seem incapable
of the feat, “Dr Mastropaolo” will admit the real reason
why you are scared of this. Could it be because you know that you
have no scientific case, only a religious one? That was why I facetiously
offered you the Pope. But even the Pope believes in evolution.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
(This was written 9-10-02)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
All of the conditions are in place for the Life Science Prize.
1. You hand the judge your certified check for $10,000.
2. I hand the judge my certified check for $10,000.
3. You prove evolution is science.
4. I prove evolution is not science.
5. Evidence must be objective, valid, reliable and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence wins.
7. At the end of the debate, the judge hands the winner both checks.
The judge is a superior court judge. The venue is a court house.
Do you accept?
Sincerely,
Joseph Mastropaolo
Dr. Mastropaolo wrote me:
An automatic email came back saying he is on vacation
and he'll answer on his return. Joseph
(This was 9-25-02)
Dr. Dawkins:
I trust you are rested and ready to dialogue
with Dr. Mastropaolo.
Karl Priest
Dr. Dawkins did not respond.
(This was written 10-3-02)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
You are faced with a dilemma. Either debate
and risk defeat, or dodge and be declared in default.
Do you have a desire to defend Darwinism?
Karl Priest
(In answer to my 1-14-03 request for a copy of the "Free Inquiry"
article Dr. Dawkins replied on the same day as follows:)
I have attached the latest draft I have. But I haven’t seen
the printed version and can’t remember what alterations may
have been made in proof, nor what title, running head, and pull
quotes they gave it. Why not buy a copy of Free Inquiry? And read
it. You might even learn something.
Richard Dawkins
(On the same day I wrote:)
Dr. Dawkins:
I needed to see the article quickly.
I read a lot of skeptic material--probably
more than you read of creationist literature. I am in almost total
agreement with things skeptics criticize. We separate on Christianity.
What I find amusing is that the majority
of skeptics refuse to be skeptical about evolutionism. I find that
position to be narrow-minded and hypocritical. The few who are skeptical
of ALL things provide me with some wonderful ideas and quotes critical
of evolutionism
Hasn't your copy of Free Inquiry arrived?
That's probably why you were unsure of the final version of your
article. 8>)
Thank you for taking the time to forward
the article.
Karl
About the same time Dr. Mastropaolo was corresponding directly with
Dr. Dawkins.
(This was written 1-15-03)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
I would be very grateful if you would send me a reprint of your
last peer reviewed research published in a science journal with
objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated data in support of evolution.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph Mastropaolo
(He replied 1-18-03)
Dear Astronomer
The result of my brief search suggests that you never have published
any peer reviewed research in a science journal with objective,
valid, reliable, and calibrated data in support of the heliocentric
theory of the solar system.
Yours sincerely
A FlatEarther
(This was written on 1-18-03)
Dear Dr. Dawkins:
I knew that propagandists like yourself out of touch with reality
hallucinate that evolution is true. Such hallucinations so withdrawn
from reality are the medical dictionary definition of psychosis.
From what you write below, your case apparently is so advanced that
you cannot distinguish between biology and astronomy. For your own
good and the welfare of your endowed chair, my advice to default
on the Life Science Prize did not go far enough. You also should
seek at the earliest medical help.
Get well soon.
Joseph Mastropaolo
There you have it. "Big Dog" Dawkins did not defend his
beliefs any further. Instead he retreated to an atheist magazine
"Free Inquiry" (See below.). If you read his comments
carefully you will see that all he did was huff and puff and repeat
the same old trivial tripe that evolutionists spout all over the
country. You be the judge. He is the best that evolutionism has.
Is he a contender, or is he a pretender? One thing for sure: he
defaulted and is now Debate Dodger #14.
The Debate Dodger list was established to expose evolutionists for
what they truly are (ALE's*). It is hoped that the Debate Dodger
expose' will encourage creationists (especially the average local
citizen) to confront their opponents with the reality of the ALE
position. Feel free to publicly challenge local ALE's* with the
$10,000 Challenge.
So, fellow creationist--hold your head high; press on; and watch
evolutionists dodge the truth.
*ALE: Aggressive Left-leaning Evolutionist. (Ale also is a fermented
drink). To make the Debate Dodger list an individual must be an
ALE. There have been some very adamant evolutionists who have received
the $10,000 Challenge who were not placed on the list because they
maintained a polite position and did not exhibit any (or, very little)
public attacks upon creationists.
To weasel out Dawkins published the following article:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/
(The following response was not published.)
Editor:
In response to the Dr. Richard Dawkins article
defending his debate dodging we have the following comments.
We know why evolutionists are ordered not
to debate and why they must not contend for the Life Science Prize.
They are eminently unqualified as scientists and would waste their
$10,000 entry fee.
Our search of the literature reveals that
Dr. Dawkins has never published a peer reviewed article in support
of evolution. His late chum, Stephen Gould, did not either. They
are peas in a pod, both quack essayists of a 2,500 year old pagan
religion that masquerades as science. Neither one of them has 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, or any evolutionist, send it
to us for a reward. Such evidence is as invisible as the emperor's
clothes.
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. Our advice to
him to default on the Life Science Prize did not go far enough.
For the sake of his endowed chair, he also should seek, at the earliest,
psychiatric help. We hope he gets well soon.
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 jury. Given an honest judge or jury, they
would make of themselves a laughingstock. They have everything to
lose because they could not score a single honest point. Their only
rational choice is default.
The game is over. Dr. Dawkins has 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.
The creationists are asking secular scientists
like us to challenge the charlatans. We would rather debate bona
fide scientists in scientific meetings. Debating pseudoscientists,
like alchemists and evolutionists, is distasteful and unseemly because
scientifically they are ciphers.
Every evolutionist, Dr. Dawkins included,
brags that evolution is a scientific fact. But as soon as a bona
fide scientist says here is $10,000 that says evolution is pure
fantasy, then we see the first evidence of evolution. The braggart
immediately evolves into a yellow-bellied reptile that slithers
away.
Evolutionists of the world, come out of
your holes. Evolve into human beings. Defend
your fantasies or be forever branded witless Darwinist propagandists
like the authors of the greatest holocausts in human history: Hitler,
Stalin and Mao.
(On 3-7-03 we wrote:)
Editor:
Do you intend to publish our letter of 2-28-03?
Signed:
Karl Priest, M.A.
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Notes:
(The local, but nationally prominent, atheist editor published the
following in the Charleston, WV Gazette).
Potpourri
Monday January 13, 2003
