Re: Forbes takes up the Creation Science Hall/Mastropaolo Challenge!
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
> See:There has been 9 readers' comments added to the article.
Here are 2 that might be of particular interest:
From: Karl Priest
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013
Time: About 6:30 PM MT
The flight of a plane and (no matter what true believers
in evolution say about resistance to antibodieswhich is
easily explained by creationists ) medical treatments
are based upon SCIENCE.
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa
Claus, and the Headless Horseman.
See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013
Time: About 6:50 PM MT
Richard Dawkins replies to Karl Priest
Why I Won't Debate Creationists
By RICHARD DAWKINS
Added: Sunday, 14 May 2006 at 5:00 PM
My own most bizarre invitation, and the most transparently
publicity-hungry, is dated August 2002.
- "Dear Dr. Dawkins:
- (O)n behalf of Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo I present you
- with the following challenge. This is the announcement
- of the Life Science Prize.
- ...the winner takes all.
- The standards of evidence will be those of science:
- objectivity, validity, reliability and calibration.
- The preponderance of the evidence prevails.
- Karl Priest
Who, I wondered, was 'Dr Joseph Mastropaolo'?
Evidently a personage so grand that somebody else writes his
letters for him.
For reasons I have already explained, I had not the slightest intention of accepting his (their?) ridiculous challenge, but
I thought I might have some fun before ending the correspondence.
With hindsight, that might have been a time-wasting mistake.
Although I wondered in passing about 'calibration', I noted that
the standards of evidence would be those of science.
I therefore made the innocent suggestion that the judging panel should consist of distinguished scientists, to be nominated by the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and Nobel Prizewinners.
Needless to say, I would never have dreamed of troubling these
august bodies with such a silly request.
If Priest/Mastropaolo had possessed even a grain of intelligence,
he could easily have called my bluff.
But of course he did not.
Instead (this time beginning his letter as plain Mastropaolo but still signing off as Priest) he accused me of trying to rig the judging process, and ended with ringing defiance:
- "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?"
Priest/Mastropaolo won't let it drop, and he goes on challenging
me, with increasing belligerence, to accept or 'default'.
At one point I told him I might publish the correspondence for amusement, and received the following truculent permission to
- "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
- You have defaulted out of fear."
I promised that I would indeed publish his words (I just have).
I reminded him that it was he who refused to submit a scientific question to the judgment of the world's leading scientists, and
I added a further constructive suggestion:
- ". . . 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."
This challenge by me has ? of course ? gone unanswered.
On my side the correspondence is terminated, although Priest/Mastropaolo went on bombarding me weekly with
increasingly raucous accusations of cowardice.
He reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and
the Holy Grail who continued, as a stump-waving,
blood-spouting torso, to shout
- "Running away, eh? . . . Come back here
- and take what's coming to you. I'll bite
- your legs off"
at the indifferent back of the opponent who had successively
deprived him of all four limbs.
- (Go to link for complete analysis)
No, I will not ever debate Joseph Mastropaolo
By PZ Myers
March 28, 2013
So you can stop sending me email about it now.
I've known about Mastropaolo for almost 20 years now.
He's been on the same worn out horse all that time,
doing exactly the same thing over and over again,
and every once in a while some gullible news outlet
gives him a breath of publicity and this crap starts
He was a noisemaker on the usenet group talk.origins,
or rather, his amanuensis Karl Priest was there constantly
promoting his master Mastropaolo in tedious, abusive tirades.
Mastropaolo is one of the best examples of an untalented,
unqualified hack who wants to ride the coattails of other
people's reputations, and he has been flailing wildly for
attention for a long time now.
He is simply a typical ignorant creationist.
He's a young earth creationist.
No one in their right mind would want to debate
He's got a whole website full of this..., and the
amusing thing is that most creationists consider him
to be on the fringe.