(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

INCREDIBLY, Kanawha County math teacher and “creation” advocate Karl Priest challenged one of the world’s foremost biologists to a $20,000 duel. Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University in England, author of several major books on evolution, says Priest asked him to put $10,000 in escrow, then debate a “creation scientist” who also would put $10,000 in escrow, and the pot would go to the winner, as decided by a panel of judges. Writing in the current Free Inquiry magazine, Dawkins says he “had not the slightest intention of accepting his ridiculous challenge,” but he replied that he would debate if the judges were top world scientists. Whereupon, Priest wrote that Dawkins was trying “to stack the jury with evolutionists” — adding: “You, Dr. Dawkins, are an intellectual coward.” Dawkins wrote that if another such challenge occurs, he will “plead a prior engagement: an important forthcoming debate against the Flat Earth Society.”

Dr. Mastropaolo made some witty comments regarding the article: The Devil's Chaplain: Richard Dawkins on Christianity 2/25/2004 Albert Mohler

Chaplain or Footman?
<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 him credit--his ambitions are not humble.> Megalomania is not a synonym for intelligence.
<Ultimately, we sense that Dawkins would like to clear the public square of all religious believers as well.>
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 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.
<"If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to accept them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence.">
If so, why pass up $10,000 just to show it? The Devil's Chaplain is all mouth and no guts, a very short circuit.
<(Dawkins) argues that parents should have no 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.
<As he applies to be the devil's chaplain, it appears that Richard Dawkins is superbly qualified for the job.>
Chaplain? Never. 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, http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/lifescie.html.
Joseph Mastropaolo

(This was written 10 December 2006)

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

I am disappointed that you did not contact me, or Dr. Mastropaolo, while you were in the United States. If you are still in this country my telephone number is 304-769-0217.

It has been brought to my attention that you are on a crusade for atheism. That brings to mind something Dr. Mastropaolo said during our previous correspondence: "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."

Apparently your symptoms are becoming more acute. Dr. Mastropaolo and I can help you if you seek help as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Karl Priest

P. S. One of your fantasy publications should change its name. "Free Inquiry", to my knowledge, did not publish Dr. Mastropaolo's and my response to your article in Vol. 23, no. 1 (Winter 2002/2003).

(This was written 31 December 2006 and misdated as 2007)

AN OPEN LETTER TO DR. RICHARD DAWKINS

Dear Dr. Dawkins,

After viewing your Q/A at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/dawkins_in_lynchburg.html I have to announce to the world that you have unwittingly proven me correct.*

Your only hope of successfully evangelizing for your fervent faith is to have a venue of gullible kids looking for an excuse to indulge themselves. Most (if not all) of your audience of admirers are products of American government schools and have difficulty distinguishing between facts and fairy tales. The kids who applauded your Sorcerer's Show would be stumped if they had to distinguish between Kipling's "Just so Stories" and Lewis' logic of Christianity.

You should have been ethical and told the kids, "I implore you to join me in rejecting God because I want to make my own rules, not because I have an intelligent argument." I would respect you had you done that.

But, you do not deserve respect because you unashamedly took advantage of the opportunity to spew your spiel without interruption and then mock the questioners who had no way to rebut your silly answers.

The video is a prime example of why you have proven, beyond all doubt, that I was correct.* In 2002 on behalf of a scientist, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, I issued a challenge for you to defend Darwinism in a venue where you had to stand on science alone. You dodged the debate challenge and became #14 on the list of hallucinators at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ .

Despite your article in (Un)Free Inquiry ("Why I Won't Debate Creationists", vol. 23, no.1 Winter 2002/2003: p. 12-14) everyone, except credulous college students, know that you are only a quack story teller who has not published scientific research in over 25 years (if ever). Anyone in touch with reality also knows what a coward is. Which brings us to why you have proven me correct.* Dr. Mastropaolo, and I, slapped you with an intellectual glove in 2002. Turning your other cheek is obviously not due to your belief in the teachings of Jesus. So, with this open letter, we hereby slap you across the other cheek.

You have the time, you have the money, BUT you do not have the intellectual guts because you know a fair debate would expose your bubble gum gun. That would be a real problem when you are facing a man with the equivalent of a scientific bazooka. Devolution, not evolution is the weapon that destroys Darwinism and Dawkinism.

So, Dr. Dawkins I conclude where I began. You have proven me correct.*

Happy New Year.

Yours truly,

Karl Priest

*9-5-02 "You, Dr. Dawkins are an intellectual coward. You are scared to defend your faith in evolutionism on a level playing field."

(As opportunities arise letters such as the following are sent to various publications.)

Dear New York Times Editor:

Regarding the review (Inferior Design, July 1) by Richard Dawkins:

Evolutionists, like Dawkins, are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/.

Dr. Dawkins has not published a peer reviewed article in 25+ years, if ever. He is a 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. Try to find one peer reviewed article in support of evolution published in a science journal with objective, valid, reliable, calibrated data by Richard Dawkins.

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 did not go far enough. For the sake of the welfare of his endowed chair he also should seek, at the earliest, medical help. We hope he gets well soon.

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.

Karl Priest
141 Karmel Lane
Poca, WV 25159
(304) 769-0217

and

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
16291 Magellan Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
(714) 843-6387