Wanna Make an Easy $10,000?

A young-earth creationist has offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who can demonstrate the scientific case for evolution before a judge. Each side puts up $10,000, and whoever the judge decides in favor of keeps the total. The only question is whether the judge will be well-informed about the methods of the natural sciences. But otherwise, it should be an open and shut case. Any takers?


"That's interesting about the phrase "religion of the book." Surely the phrase "people of the ..."

Liquid Scripture at #AARSBL17
"My comment was not directed at anything that either McGrath or Ehrman have said, so ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"Well, there are a number of ways to explain that. First, the original Trek was ..."

Star Trek: Discovery – Into the ..."
"When interpreting Star Trek we have to start with the presupposition that Star Trek is ..."

Star Trek: Discovery – Into the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/ VinnyJH

    It’s been done. Kitzmiller.

  • Just Sayin’

    I bet $10,000 that it’s the Creationists who get to choose the judge.

  • bobz

    The name of the person providing the money is required as well as the rules. Also law does not usually consider religion as evidence. How is this factored in?

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100000023960330/ John Pieret

    This is old, old news:


    The investment in time (you’d need numerous scientists to cover all the areas his nut will insist on bringing up) wouldn’t be worth the $10,000, which you wouldn’t get anyway. One rule of the contest is that the winner pays the “court” (actually arbitration) costs, which after several days of transcribed testimony, would easily exceed $10,000.


    The Talk Origins article is right: Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and you soon discover that the pig enjoys it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/ James F. McGrath

      That’s a great quote. I didn’t realize this was the exact same guy who had done this previously – thanks for pointing this out!

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/100000023960330/ John Pieret

    P.S. They wouldn’t even really acknowledge that they lost. As the Guardian article notes:

    Mastropaolo said that he hopes the trials can improve future debates between evolutionists and creationists by addressing the issue in a legal and scientific way.

    “The evolutionists thereafter could read that transcript and make their case a bit stronger on the next one they contend against and we can do the same,” Mastropaolo said. “We can read the transcript and not have have to go through the same process over and over and over again without any let up, without any resolution.”
    In other words, they’d just be doing, at best, a slow motion Gish Gallop where, when one claim is knocked down, they just move on to the next and eventually go back to the beginning with slightly changed “arguments” .

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/ James F. McGrath

      You have a wonderful way with words – I love the phrase “a slow motion Gish Gallop”!

  • go_4_tli

    No. Scientific truth is not determined in the courtroom.
    The “winner” in court is who argues best, not who has the evidence on her side.