Insectman Home
Contact Us
My Testimony
Our Links
Get Saved
Exodus Mandate
The Lie: Evolution


The History of the DEBATE DODGERS List
(Evolutionists Exposed)

by Karl C. Priest April 9, 2009 (revised 1-1-2019)

(This is an edited series of articles that appeared in the Kanawha Creation Science Group newsletter May-November 2002. There may be some confusion in tense due to editing.)


Part I

Over the years I have observed that most defenders of evolutionism have willingly hardened their hearts.  The root cause of their fanaticism is religious.  They will not listen to reason and will argue endlessly to keep from facing the reality of a powerful creator God who will hold them accountable.  Therefore, to those individuals (Not those who are evolutionists by default and are willing to consider an alternative) I say, "You have been called out.  If you can't face the Big Dog (Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo) then you need to stay on the porch with the pups.  If you are serious about evolution being science you will defend it in a "winner takes all" debate for a serious amount of money.  If you back down, your name will be added to "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE DODGERS".
The first name on "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST  DEBATE DODGERS" is a prominent personality in the world of skeptics.  He is a professed atheist and a professor in the Department of Botany and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee--Dr. Massimo Pigiucci.  When a local humanist informed Dr. Pigiucci of the $10,000 challenge he responded, "You can tell Karl Priest that he is a buffoon (quote me on it).  Are these people ever going to get serious?"  I seriously took that as a refusal to debate and made Dr. Pigiucci #1 on "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE DODGERS".

My website currently contains several articles which I composed.  Each article was meticulously prepared as I reported on real science and commented on evolutionism non-science (nonsense).  Being a fallible man, there could be an error or two.  If an error is discovered the proper procedure would be to contact me and say something like, "Mr. Priest, I have a question about something you wrote and it appears you are mistaken."  At that time, I would gratefully investigate and reply with any necessary corrections.  If I did not make the correction it then would be ethical for the critic to go public with his criticism of my article. Soon after my website was on line I received email from two critics who did not observe rudimentary courtesy.

First, I was contacted by Andre H. Artus* after he posted (He didn't say where) a scathing attack of my article "Ants In Darwin's Pants".  He opened his barrage with, "I do not have a problem with that (criticizing evolutionism) per se.  I do have a problem with the dishonest way in which he tries to do it."  Then Mr. Artus continued to call me the worse kind of liar he could imagine.

Now, calling me a liar ended any chance of a cordial dialogue between the two of us concerning his supposed inaccuracies in my article.  So I sent him Dr. Mastropaolo's $10,000 challenge to see just how serious Mr. Artus was about evolutionism.  Mr. Artus attempted to duck the challenge by telling me I should "ask Jesus" to raise the $10,000 for him.  Mr. Artus became #2 on "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE DODGERS".

About a week later, a fellow named Lee Bowen (who refers to himself as "Apostle Lee") sent email criticizing several of my articles and headed one email as "Priest Steps in It Again."  He started out with, "Why do you tell lies?  Don't you know that your silly book (He was referring to the Bible.) says that is a sin and you will go to hell for it?"  He continued to relate how "upset" he was over my lying.  (I'd like to know on what standard these guys base their moral code.)

"Apostle Lee" lacked scientific substance in his criticism of the articles and his motivation is made clear in the following quotes from his attacks upon some of my statements.

Some of the things he said: "Only in the mind of a gullible Christian." "All you have is a tale told by an ancient book about a Bronze Age war god. If this is accurate your silly little god is very limited. So it must originate in your imagination like your god."

There were other such comments, but those should suffice to make my point.      

When Mr. Lee was confronted with the "$10,000 Challenge" he replied with a bogus counter offer claiming he would place a certified check for $500,000 with a third party law firm.  Dr. Mastropaolo suggested Mr. Lee get change from any reputable bank and after Mr. Lee loses the $10,000 we would give him a chance to lose the other $490,000.  Mr. Lee then became #3 on "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE DODGERS".

Those who make "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST  DEBATE DODGERS" are typical of a minute minority of people who have seized control of the minds of uninformed citizens and students in America.  The methods they use and the intellectual and spiritual damage they have done is analogous to the physical damage inflicted by the al-Qaida terrorists. Like the USA policy, we are starting to name them publicly and go after their network of deceivers. 

Evolutionists are being exposed on "THE LIST of EVOLUTIONIST DEBATE DODGERS". You can keep up with new additions by visiting the Life Science Prize webpage.

*Mr. Artus gave me a nonsensical mandate to quote him "accurately and in full or not at all" (emphasis added).  The accuracy requirement goes without saying.  "In full" is ridiculous.  I will provide complete copies of Mr. Artus' quotes if anyone inquires with an SASE.

Part II

An editorial in the Charleston, West Virginia Gazette (3-22-02) featured a Case Western Reserve University* (Cleveland) geneticist, Dr. Angela Ridgel, who was "urging West Virginia academic colleagues to sign a petition against an Ohio proposal to teach creationism". 

I emailed her and said, "If you want to rid yourself of the worry caused by those who refuse to be indoctrinated by evolutionism I present a very simple challenge below.  Perhaps you will rewrite your West Virginia colleagues and write your worldwide colleagues and answer the challenge."  Then I presented the "$10,000 Challenge".

She replied, "I will not participate in a scam such as this. Evolution has been proven over and over again. It is creationism that has NO scientific proof.  I do not wish to receive any further e-mail from you."

Another "open-minded" evolutionist bites the dust.  Dr. Ridgel is #4.

The Charleston Gazette is notorious for its avid devotion to evolutionism.  One of its top editors, Mr. Dan Radmacher, was presented with the "$10,000 Challenge".  His way to wiggle out was to argue about the make-up of the jury.  I offered to choose random citizens that would meet standards of the typical American jury. Mr. Radmacher did not find that a fair offer and said, "Please publish my name as a defaulter. And I will publish yours and Dr. M's as defrauders."
Well, the "dialogue with Dan" continued, via e-mail, for several days and Mr. Radmacher, like most evolutionists, grew quite hostile.  (See Debate With Dan I and Debate With Dan II.) Finally he insulted me and "got my dander up".  To make a long story short, he agreed to post an unedited mini-debate (between the two of us) about the "$10,000 Challenge" (page 4A of the May 17, 2002 Gazette).  He still declines to defend his belief in evolution so, as he requested, Mr. Radmacher is #5 on the list.

The list soon made it to a half dozen names when I received the following reply to the "$10,000 Challenge". 

"If you think that debates and cash challenges have any significance in the determination of scientific truth, then you should consider the cases of flat-earthers Samuel Birley Rowbotham, M.C. Flanders, and Wilbur Glenn Voliva."  This petty reply came from #6 Dr. J. Paulson, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh.

If evolutionism has scientific proof, evolutionists would likely want to pick up an easy $10,000 dollars. If disciples of Darwinism got donations to cover the evolutionist's share it would be a quick 20 grand and world wide fame. But, they continue to be Debate Dodgers.

Part III

Previously I have described how the "Debate Dodger" list came into existence.  In this part I want to clarify some issues.

Only a select few can qualify to be placed on the list.  Of course the main criterion is to dodge a challenge to support their evolutionist quackery by facing Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo in his $10,000 Challenge.  However, that alone is not enough.  Any combination of the following attributes qualifies an individual for making the final "Debate Dodger" roster.

"Debate Dodger" finalists must exhibit a high degree of arrogance, hostility to Bible-believing Christians, fanatical belief in evolutionism, rudeness, and/or hard heartedness. There have been two individuals who have declined to debate who did not make the cut because they have maintained a level of civility and polite disagreement that prevents their inclusion on the "Debate Dodger" list.  Each of those two individuals have credentials that would make them prominent "feathers in our war-bonnets". 

We continue to pray for each person on this list and will remove any who offer an apology for their actions that qualified them for the "Debate Dodger" list.  Better yet, we would love to remove them because they have realized the folly of their ways and embraced the Creator, Jesus Christ, as Lord and Savior.

For too long the evolutionists have been throwing intellectual dodge balls at creationists. Now creationists have realized evolutionists have candy arms.  Creationists are catching the weak throws of evolutionists and are firing "rockets" in return.  Evolutionists are scurrying all over the place to dodge the truth.  Some of the prominent ones make the elite "Debate Dodger" list.

*We were not picking on Case Western.  It just happened that both Dr. Ridgel and Dr. Krauss are actively fighting an attempt by Ohio citizens to fight evolutionism.  Later, Case Western became so radical that we made it the first organization al Debate Dodger.

Part IV

In the last part Dr. Lawrence Krauss (a physicist at Case Western University) was in line for the seventh Debate Dodger.  He had accused Intelligent Design (i.e., creationist) advocates of being "disingenuous" and believing in "nonsense". "Disingenuous" means lacking "inventive skill or imagination; cleverness.  The nonsense term is a slur to millions of Americans who believe in Creation. By calling creationists "disingenuous" he is implying that evolutionists are good story tellers.  No wonder Dr. Krauss refused the "$10,000 Challenge" by saying "It would not be productive primarily since there is nothing worth defending it against."

My reply to that was "If evolution exists it would be nice spending money for most anyone.  If you don't need the money (if you won) you could donate it to a worthy cause--perhaps endow a workshop on writing fairy tales and calling them science."  Dr. Krauss became officially #7.

The eighth slot was quickly filled by an attorney.  Dr. Dennis D. Hirsch must have taken the "fifth" since he would not respond at all to the challenge.  In an Ohio newspaper article he said Intelligent Design proponents have engaged in "artful behaviour" in obscuring their "religious motivations" and having an "extreme religious agenda".  Artful means "clever; ingenious", so it is apparent he disagrees with Dr. Krauss in his opinion of the skills of creationists.

Number nine was filled by a big name in pseudo -science: non other than the editor in chief of Scientific American magazine.  Dr. John Rennie wrote an article in the June 17, 2002 issue of his magazine entitled "15 answers to Creationists Nonsense".  With a lengthy article like that I felt sure he would go for the ten grand.  On second thought, maybe he isn't as sure of himself as his article alludes.  Dr. Rennie is the only one in the top ten who does not reveal a direct email address. He must have barrister Hirsch as legal counsel because he would not reply to my contacts. Anyway, he opened his article by claiming to be embarrassed about creationist efforts to reveal evolutionism as a "flawed, poorly supported fantasy". Dr. Rennie should be embarrassed that he cannot defend evolutionism in front of a jury. Perhaps he fears a jury would rule evolutionism is a "flawed, poorly supported fantasy."

Part V

Each Debate Dodger name is equally guilty of being an aggressive evolutionist who has arrogantly attacked creationists and then refused or ignored the challenge to face a creationist champion.  However, certain numbers have a little more significance than others.  Number one, Dr. Massimo Pigiucci, is very worthy of the first position.  Dr. Pigiucci has a webpage dedicated to his atheism and his belief in evolutionism.  On this webpage he proclaims himself an activist for his cause and advocates a nationwide social network of fellow unbelievers.  The tenth position was to be filled by someone fairly close to the evolutionist aggressiveness of Dr. Pigiucci.

I allowed the tenth spot to be available to a male and a female evolutionist and both were worthy candidates.

The male candidate was a professor in the Department of Evolution at Ohio State University--Dr. Steve Rissing.  Dr. Rissing was a leader of a group in the state of Ohio which is attempting to block an effort, supported by a majority of Ohioans, to allow evidence critical of evolution into the science curriculum.  It bugs me that Dr. Rissing has a deep interest in the behavior of ants and still believes in evolutionism.  Hopefully he will read the "ant" articles on my webpage.

Dr. Rissing was formerly a professor at Arizona State University in the Department of Biology.  A few years ago he was active in a move to erase an Arizona State Board of Education attempt to expose evolutionism to alternative theories.  He accused the critics of evolutionism of having the "goal in mind of censoring the concept of evolution."  He was aligned with an ASU philosophy professor who called evolution and gravity "central and accepted concepts of science."  That is a common slur, directed toward creationists, which insinuates they lack basic intelligence.  Most often, creationists are accused of being "flat-earthers".

I am not sure what religion is espoused by Dr. Rissing.  An article of his (about Muslim Science) is on an atheist webpage that has a disclaimer warning religious people "there are no blasphemy laws here to protect your sensitive eyes."  In his refusal to accept the $10,000 Debate Challenge, Dr. Rissing quoted Jesus and mentioned Judas and said he thought "God would be disappointed" in our $10,000 Challenge.  He claimed we "obviously have no understanding of the process of science" and "demonstrate a vast misunderstanding of science".  Then he had the audacity to say, "I reject your insincere offer."  Once again an evolutionist "big dog" begins yelping when confronted by the "Big Dog"--Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo.   

Phillip Johnson, in his Weekly Wedge Update of June 18, 2001, described an article Dr. Rissing wrote for a Columbus newspaper about the fossil record.  Dr. Johnson pointed out Dr. Rissing's lack of even an "elementary understanding" of the subject:  "It may seem odd that a professor with Rissing's credentials would make such a howler...his (Rissing's) evident purpose was to sneer at creationists."  Now, what was it that Dr. Rissing said about a "vast misunderstanding of science"?

Even though he was a good competitor and had the backbone to reply to my email challenge, Dr. Rissing has to settle for number 11.  He opened his debate dodging excuse email by claiming his "state-assisted" salary and two teenage children would not allow him to come up with ten thousand dollars.  If he had left it at that, I would have felt enough sympathy for him to omit him from the list altogether. His closing comments earned him a spot, just not the special "10" spot. I had to make an arbitrary decision and chose the following evolutionist extremist as number ten. 

Dr. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, would not respond to my email challenges.  Dr. Forrest was cited in the writings of two previous Debate Dodgers: #8 (Dr. Hirsch) and #9 (Dr. Rennie).  A brief Internet search revealed Dr. Forrest as a former board member of the Louisiana ACLU.  That is enough to make her more than worthy as the tenth Debate Dodger.  Icing added to the cake is that she is listed as an essay and editorial reference on the webpage of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. 

Debate Dodger qualifiers must have exhibited a high degree of animosity toward anyone who does not express blind faith in what Debate Dodgers believe.  Take a look at some of what Dr. Forrest has written regarding creationists.

In 1994 citizens of a suburb of New Orleans petitioned the local school board to allow intelligent design into science classes.  Exhibiting a degree of paranoia and fear of conspiracy Dr. Forest said "The term intelligent design is one of the code-phrases that creationists have adopted to replace the word creation."  She brags that she "led the opposition to that campaign, and my strategy was to expose the falsity of the creationists 'scientific' claims."  Those statements are from her web article entitled, "Combating Creationism in a Louisiana School System".  In this article she accuses the petitioning citizens of "incompetence and charlatanism" and trying to use "deceptions" to insert "hogwash" into the local science curriculum.  She brags that she "had a great many letters to write" to make the School Board "aware of the fraudulence" of the citizens curriculum guide proposal.  She claims the guide was "loaded with false claims, scientific errors, and misleading language".  Dr. Forrest also accused the citizens of proposing lesson plans with "ridiculous, confusing material" and with using "an old creationist trick" to mislead.

She equated the citizens' efforts as "subterfuge, similar to the policies by which some school districts have tried to inject prayer...under the pretense that the prayers are 'student initiated'"...and claimed the proposed citizens' "'origins' policy was designed to enable fundamentalists students, prompted by fundamentalist parents, to bring religion into science classes."  Ah!  That is what it always gets down to--the religion of Bible believing Christians versus the religion (which they will not admit) that evolutionists follow.

Dr. Forrest states her group "exposed the creationists as frauds" and "showed that they were ignoramuses" and hopes her account will "be helpful to others who must battle creationists".  She is a nonscientist who is dedicated to imposing her religious beliefs upon public school children at taxpayer expense.  Yes, Dr. Forrest is a good solid evolutionist eminently qualified to hold the esteemed rating of "10".

Another of her webpages is titled "At the Front in Tangipahoa Parish".  She, correctly, sees this as a battle of worldviews. 

Part VI:

The world heavy weight champion of evolutionism was challenged.  No, it's not Darwin reincarnated.  It's none other than the world renowned Dr. Richard Dawkins.

It was fun and interesting to watch various evolutionist fanatics "shuck and jive" and "run and hide" when challenged to defend evolutionism in a debate that would cost them to lose face and cash if they lost.  Sure, there are evolutionists who will debate creationists although it is getting harder and harder to find one.  There are small fry locals who will debate, but their loss is just a minor league game as far as the media is concerned. Some fairly prominent ones, like Dr. Massimo Pigliucci will debate for a fee. For a recent debate with Dr. Duane Gish he probably received $500.  He was guaranteed the money no matter how lousy he performed.  

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo's "$10,000 Challenge" has revealed the intellectual cowardice of some AAA level evolutionist players.  Dr. Barbara Forrest (#10) would fall into that category along with Dr. Steve Rissing (#11).  Dr. Rissing is the media darling of Ohio evolutionist liberals currently seeking to censor criticism of evolution from Ohio public schools.  The editor-in chief of Scientific American magazine, Dr. John Rennie (#9), would probably be classified as a major league bench jockey since he has remained hidden in the dugout "shouting" at creationists who are out on the playing field.

Anyway, the game became a little boring since it was like the Mastropaolo Yankees playing a girl's softball team.  We decided to challenge the big sticks who are on the evolutionists' major league roster.  We wanted to see if they had any mustard on the ball.  

Step up to the plate Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, trained as an anthropologist, is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).  The NCSE is a small (in 1999 they had 4 full time employees) California based, donation soliciting, nonprofit group that has the sole purpose of making sure evolution saturated science is the only thing taught in public school classrooms. (For more about the NCSE see the sidebar.)

In a published article Dr. Scott wrote that "Scientists should refuse formal debates (with creationists) because they do more harm than good."  With that chicken position already established I only contacted Dr. Scott as a formality to make her an official, and first bona fide Major League, Debate Dodger.  In reply to my challenge she wrote, "My policy is not to debate creationism as science."  Now that statement of itself is insulting, but let's look at the "Scouting Report" of Debate Dodger number 12--Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Raised a Christian Scientist and liberal Protestant, Dr. Scott now calls herself a "humanist" and "non-theist".  Those two terms are used by atheists who want to hide their theology.  Covert atheist Scott now travels nationwide speaking in support of evolutionism and is very popular with groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  Isn't it interesting that the famous creationist, Dr. Henry Morris, is billed, by secular media, as a fundamentalist Christian even though his scientific credentials would make Dr. Scott's pale in comparison.  To my knowledge Dr. Scott has never been identified as an atheist even though her name comes up time and again when citizens try to oppose evolutionism.

Evolution, in Dr. Scott's own words is more than just a scientific theory.  She admits that evolution has "political and social consequences". She also said, "As humanists, we can use science for many purposes, among them to inspire us, and to help us think and reason logically about important issues such as ethics and morals."  Yet evolutionists believe all of our ethics are mere products of a chance combination of our genes over millions of years!

She is a fellow of the Center For Inquiry (CFI) which bills itself as secular humanist and accepting "a worldview of naturalism".  Their webpage states secular humanism was formed on the foundation of the "Stocics, Epicureans, and Confucianism".  The movement is traced through the famous infidel, Robert Ingersoll (see sidebar).  Originally, according to the website of CFI, the early organizers of secular humanism classified it as a "non-theistic religion" (Read atheistic religion).

When I was fighting a couple of local battles to expose the fraud of evolutionism I used the Freedom of Information Act to find out what sources public officials had used to rationalize ruling against my efforts.  I found they had been sent huge amounts of propaganda from the NCSE.  One prominent staff member of the NCSE is Molleen Matsumura (with only an under graduate degree in anthropology) who participated in convincing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Isn't that the one that removed "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?) that a cross in a public place is unconstitutional.  Matsumura is a leader in the "Internet Infidel Supporters" and is linked to the Council for Secular Humanism (see sidebar), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Secular Web (see sidebar).  

Do you see my point?  A little research easily links nearly all fanatical supporters of evolutionism as atheists who disguise their religious dogma with names like "Free Inquiry" and the various scientific sounding titles.  They post slogans that say they seek to "advance critical thinking" and a "constant search for objective truth", but it is all bogus. They have a hidden agenda to destroy the Christian worldview.  More research would very likely place all of these people under the ACLU, abortion, pro-homosexual, New Age extremist umbrella.

This brings me to the next "Big League Evolutionist" who is listed as the 13th Debate Dodger.  Dr. Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and the founder/director of the Skeptics Society: It is your turn to bat.  

The Skeptic Society webpage (see sidebar) displays glowing praise from the late Dr. Carl Sagan, Dr. John Rennie (Debate Dodger #9), and the Christian critic Dr. Edward O. Wilson.  The Society quotes the late evolutionist extremist Stephen Jay Gould as praising Shermer as a "powerful activist" and "an important figure in American public life".  

Claiming to be a former Christian that lost his faith due to an evolutionist professor Dr. Shermer would probably call himself an agnostic.  Dr. Shermer has an M. A. in experimental psychology and a Ph. D. in the history of science and has made many appearances on national television programs.  It was easy to strike out Dr. Shermer using his own words to set up the pitch.  On the Skeptics Society webpage FAQs he (I assume) states the Society's view is to "make a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand".  STRIKE ONE!  

In one of his magazine articles he said, "Evolution deniers (in contrast to Holocaust deniers) are a sneaky lot, duplicitous to the core, and they are dangerously successful at slipping in their agenda to unsuspecting school children in America's public school system." And that was one of the nicest things he said about creationists.  In the same article he bragged, "I have certainly never backed down from a good point-by-point argument (see my chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things on 'Confronting Creationists'..."  STRIKE TWO!!

The strike out was completed during an email exchange with Dr. Shermer and his staff member, Pat.  Pat, at the very first, set up an escape route for Dr. Shermer by claiming Dr. Shermer is always being challenged, frequently by Holocaust deniers, so opponents can claim victory.  Then Pat said most evolution challengers have a "poor understanding of the actual claims of evolution".

I replied, "Please send me verification of a debate challenge, from anyone on any subject, that offers a $10,000 prize. I assure you that Dr. Mastropaolo has an excellent understanding of evolutionism."  Pat waffled some more and finally Dr. Shermer asked, "Who determines the winner?"  After he heard that Dr. Mastropaolo proposes a jury, Dr. Shermer asked several more questions which we answered.  After several days of no response from Dr. Shermer I asked him if he accepted the challenge.  His response was that he had "never been interested in accepting or not accepting your challenge" then he asked, "Who will be the jury for this test."

I told him "Honest, competent, unbiased individuals mutually acceptable to both sides."  No response.  Three days later I asked him if he had further questions and warned him of a default.  Pat took over and fell back on the original excuse, set up at first, that "It happens all the time.  Someone comes up with a 'debate' idea and they declare victory".  Then more Holocaust denier comparisons and insinuations of dishonesty on my and Dr. Mastropaolo's part. Using an evolutionist common refrain, Pat said, "Its not as if creationism v. evolution hasn't been thoroughly discussed ad nausuem. Science has come down on the side of evolution so strong, consistently and powerfully that the only people who are not able to comprehend this are people who are against evolution for reasons of faith."

I responded that Pat was throwing up totally unrelated items in order to dodge the challenge and Pat continued (in two more emails) to dodge by relating the challenge to Pat challenging the Pope to debate priestly celibacy and, "by the way, the Catholic church has no problem with evolution."  Next Pat (in two emails) accused me of "having a focus on Michael (that) is nothing short of bizarre." and claimed that Dr. Shermer could not default on something he never agreed to.

Realizing Pat was baiting me I terminated the correspondence (summarized above) with the final fast ball from Dr. Mastropaolo's keen wit: "Dr. Shermer, You bragged, you were challenged on your bragging, then you reneged on the contest your bragging instigated. When you call for a contest, then decline to compete, you have lost by default. Even six-year-olds know that."  STRIKE THREE!!! (I let Pat have the last word, since a strike out is very frustrating, and went to work on this article.)


The series of articles began when some fellows (Artus and Bowen) attacked me for my creationist beliefs.  I do not know who those two people are and if they even used their real names.  They are typical of the many vehement vipers who are on a crusade against creationists.  About the same time someone sent anonymous letters, to the faculty of my school, slurring my integrity and intelligence.  Then Dr. Massimo Pigiucci called me a "buffoon" so I was a little irritated.  Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo and I decided to start a list of those who declined to debate. (See "The $10,000 Challenge" at the end of this article) The local evolutionist newspaper printed a diatribe from an Ohio professor (Dr. Ridgel) so I challenged her.  The editorial editor of the aforementioned paper engaged me in a discussion that actually proved beneficial.  He asked questions that helped us examine and refine the details of The Challenge". (I would not have included him on the list, even though he is a rabid evolutionist, if he had not insisted on making the list.) Next a creationist friend suggested Dr. James Paulson be challenged because Dr. Paulson had engaged my friend in an email debate.  After that, as news stories provided leads, I sent the challenge to Debate Dodgers 7-11.

That enlightening experience inspired me to contact two nationally (perhaps internationally) prominent egotistical evolutionists (Scott and Shermer) which naturally led to the world renowned grand guru of evolutionism Dr. Richard Dawkins (Oxford University professor of Public Understanding of Science).  Let me tell you a little about Dr. Dawkins.  He is an avowed atheist who is listed as an "Internet Infidel Supporter".  He has said that anyone who does not believe in evolutionism is "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked".  Recently he was part of an atheist group that demanded equal time on the BBC radio "God Slot" and likened belief in a Creator as "infantile" and (on the same radio spot) said evolution " gloriously simple once you get it and more wonderful than our forefathers could have imagined."  And added "There is no help for us outside our own efforts."  Dr. Jonathan Sarfarti (of Answers in Genesis) said of Dr. Dawkins, "His tenacity of purpose in trying to show that there is no purpose is astounding". Dr. Dawkins says of himself that he is "a fairly militant atheist, with a fair degree of hostility toward religion."

Surely, I thought, this paradigm of persuasion (He claims many people have told him his books have changed the way they view the world.) would prevail over the prevarication's of the other Debate Dodgers.  Dr. Dawkins, the Darling of Darwinists, soon had a real dilemma.  He had to continue dialogue with Dr. Mastropaolo and me and step in his dogma or disengage and become a Debate Dodger.  The best way to describe the discussion with Dr. Dawkins is to let you read, the email exchange.  See for yourself the "excellent” arguments espoused by the highly esteemed evolutionist extremist.

Why can't evolutionists understand this simple challenge?  The answer is that they DO understand and know their science (so-called) will be exposed to the public as nonexistent.  Dr. Mastropaolo had $10,000 ready to place in escrow.  He was serious about his claim that creation is science and evolution is religion.  He was willing to allow a jury to decide the outcome in a head to head clash with anyone who believes in evolutionism and was willing to post $10,000 in escrow to prove they were serious contenders for their faith.  Surely there were enough fanatical evolutionists, in the whole world, willing to chip in a few bucks and raise the ten grand.  A victory by evolutionists would have devastated the creationist cause.  Of course, a loss by evolutionists would have devastated evolutionism.  And that is the problem--evolutionists fear a level playing field.  They want to continue brainwashing school children, college students, and the public in order to continue the push of inserting their humanism and liberal religion into society.

Evolutionists were "called out" but they continued to hide in the safety of their "rooms".  If they don't come out and engage creationists in a fair fight then they must accept defeat. 

Wake up Church!  You have let the forces of Satan take over our public school science classrooms and now they want to control our society.  In these articles I have provided irrevocable proof that the people, who intimidate Christians to role over and not press this issue, are all cut from the same cloth.  They are forcing their religion down our throats by making us believe it is us who are doing the throat cramming.  They have perverted the history of America and if they are not stopped they will pervert America herself.  They have mustered their forces on the front-line of evolutionism.  If they win, their troops will overrun Christian conservatives on every other area we try to defend.

The everlasting Gospel, according to Revelation 14:6, is to give glory to God and worship him as the creator of heaven and earth.  Satan is fighting furiously to prevent that proclamation.  What are you doing to proclaim that everlasting Gospel?

It is time that Christian people and others who seek truthful science realize that a war is going on and no one can be neutral.  The Debate Dodger list has been established to encourage citizens with common sense to stand up and fight.

Evolutionists have been pounding creationists with their intellectual fists for too many years.  Creationists are beginning to take off their gloves and use "bare-knuckle" tactics to show evolutionists creationists are not wimps who follow some namby-pamby religion motivated by our insecurities and based upon mythology.  The public is beginning to realize that evolutionism is mysticism and stupidity in the cloak of science.  Evolutionists are down on one knee and soon will be out for the count. 
Get on the winning side soon!


A huge HURRAH is due to Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo for providing the inspiration for the Debate Dodger list and articles.  Dr. Mastropaolo was truly "one of a kind" and evolutionists should thank their "whatever" that there was only one of him. He was aptly refereed to as an "evolutionist's worst nightmare".  He risked a sizable sum of money to prove evolutionism is a flimflam fairy tale that will not survive a trial by jury or judge.  Dr. Mastropaolo's outstanding wit, wisdom, and scholarship were a blessing from the Creator.

DEBATE DODGER n + 1 = Udder

The Debate Dodger list can continue ad infinitum. As a place holder, use Dr. Udder.

Udder: Unnamed Debate Dodging Evolutionist Radical.  An udder also is a milk-secreting gland.  Average evolutionists get the milk (though soured) of their belief system (which lacks meat) from Debate Dodgers.  The list is utterly complete because individual creationists can insert any local Debate Dodger into the UDDER slot.  Though the names of each Udder may differ--their arguments and motivation are nearly identical.  

The Original ($10,000) CHALLENGE

It's time for evolutionists to put their money where their mouths are.

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.


ROBERT INGERSOLL (1833-1899) said:
1.  "The doctrine that future happiness depends upon (faith in Christ) is monstrous.  (And is)..absurd...and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith....It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas (the blood of Jesus making salvation possible), or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration."

2.  "(Darwin) was one of the greatest men who ever touched this globe...His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of survival of the fitess, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity.  He (Darwin) has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that the Bible is a book written by ignorance...Charles Darwin conquered the intellectual world and his doctrines are now accepted facts"
NCSE One of their documents, "Facing Challenges to Evolution Education" is very much like Nazi tactics.  It allows for absolutely no opposition to evolution including the prevention of donations of antievolutionists material to public school libraries.  (How much the US government relies upon advice from this group would be interesting to know.)  The NCSE hired a full time staff member as a faith outreach director to work with congregations.  Eugenie Scott says clergymen are some of her best allies.

Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy, the founder and chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, credits Eugenie Scott as having "waged an heroic campaign" against creationists.  Kurtz realizes the importance of this battle when he states, "...if the implications of Darwinism are fully accepted.  This would mean a basic change in our outlook of who we are, what we are, and also how we ought to live."  He quotes from the Humanist Manifesto:  "No deity can save us; we must save ourselves."

The Skeptics Society claims to trace its tradition back 2,500 years through the Platonic Academy from the "Socratic observation, "All I know is that I know nothing".  (One wonders if they should have just stopped there.)  Instead they come across as knowing everything.  Most of the things skeptics question (psychic predictions for example) would be supported by Christians. However, the thing skeptics (for the most part) do not question is evolution.  That fact puts so called skeptics on the same team with any other hypocrite.  To cap it off, The Secular Web and Internet Infidels(brethren to skeptics), admit to being a "community of nonbelievers" whose "goal is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our world is all there is".


NCSE One of their documents, “Facing” is an NCSE publication available at their website.

The NCSE unity with clergy is from “A Conversation With Eugenie Scott” by Tom Oord and Eric Stark. Research News and Opportunities in Science and Technology, 6-02.

SECULAR HUMANISM Paul Kurtz, professor

SKEPTICS The Skeptics Society


ACLU Time and again it is revealed that the ACLU (which should be called the "Anti Christian Liberty Union") and humanists (a politically correct term for atheist) along with a few other left-leaning liberal groups are behind the crusade to keep evolutionism under tax supported support. 

Inside Information about the Life Science Prize



Individuals make public statements in support of evolution, and as individuals they are contacted. There were 169 individuals. Organizations also make statements in support of evolution. The officers of the organizations are contacted and asked for the evidence from all of their members. When we receive none, we offer the unlimited Life Science Prizes of $10,000 each for the scientific evidence from any or all of their members and request that they announce the Prizes in their publications. Unlimited grants of $10,000 for so little preparation, and that can be used over and over again, is big news for science organizations. When they do not provide any evidence, then the organization is listed under the title, "Organizations, Departments, Universities, All Members Were Challenged," and we count the membership of the organization. For example, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has a membership of 10,000 (see attached), so we count 10,000 for FASEB (see attached). Given all the individuals and all of the 40 organizations, the grand total is 363,000.

Each individual and each organization knows that their appearance on the Default Judgment (Debate Dodgers) List is tentative and they may send their evidence or contend for unlimited awards (making themselves millionaires in less than six months) at any time and be removed from the List. They may use the same evidence over and over again. It is a researcher's dream opportunity -- if he has the SCIENTIFIC evidence.


There have been several responses.

#15 Dr. Francisco Ayala, from the Department of Evolutionary Biology of the University of California at Irvine said after one of his public lectures that he would gladly take our Prizes with his evidence. He then proceeded to try without success to change the dictionary definition of evolution. When he found that it would violate the rules and would not be allowed by the judge, he decided not to contend.

#14 Richard Dawkins replied with insults but would not contend because, besides not having any evidence, he did not even know what calibration meant and admitted as much in print.

#17 Kenneth Miller pretended he had no frauds that were more than 130 years old in his biology textbook, so I invited him to make himself a millionaire with unlimited Life Science Prize awards. He answered with one word: "No."

There was extensive correspondence with # 34 Dr. Michael Zimmerman.  He tried about every unethical trick known to man to try to make trouble because he could not put up any evidence.

#51 counselor Pedro L. Irigonegaray, an attorney for the evolutionists at the Topeka hearings, stated unequivocally that he would make Dr. Mastropaolo broke. He was provided with Dr. Mastropaolo’s evidence and he was never heard from again.

Dr. Mastropaolo met in person with #53 Dr. Larry Mai of California State University, Long Beach. He only had propaganda essays by Gould and of course would not contend because he knew he would lose.

There was extensive correspondence with #91 Dr. Raymond Pierotti, Associate Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the University of Kansas and #92 Dr. Leonard Krishtalka. Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the University of Kansas all to no avail because they had not one iota of scientific evidence.

#99 Brahama D. Sharma, Ph.D., C.Chem., FRSC(life), Life fellow (chemistry) of the Royal Society was particularly vitriolic and threatened a lawsuit if his name and that of the Royal Society was posted because they had no evidence. Dr. Mastropaolo suggested he contend and punish Dr. Mastropaolo by making Dr. Mastropaolo broke without cost to Dr. Sharma instead of wasting large sums on attorney fees. But if Dr. Sharma insisted on a lawsuit, Dr. Mastropaolo would await with relish the complaint because Dr. Mastropaolo was sure the court would find in his favor with summary judgment, injunctive relief and all court costs and attorneys fees. Dr. Sharma never replied and the threatened lawsuit was never received.

All of the expert witnesses for the ACLU on the Dover case were challenged and there was extensive correspondence with some of them. Some of it was vitriolic because they had no evidence either and did not want it known.

There were others. It would take a long time to relate the remainder.

They managed to shut down the Life Science Prize website twice.

They had a state trooper call at Karl Priest's door ready to arrest him on trumped up charges.

There was another threat of a lawsuit which did not materialize.

Unfortunately a significant amount of criticism, as well as seven years of censorship, has come from "creationists", so creationists have been invited to contend as well. And of course none of them will contend because like the evolutionists out in the open they also have no scientific evidence.

Dr. Mastropaolo stood ready to contend in any Life Science Prize mini-trial if anyone will put it on with the same rules of the LSP. Dr. Mastropaolo would have been there in 48 hours with his $10,000 entry fee. If they did not want to contend on the LSP court, he would have contended on their court, same rules and same officials. He put his money where his mouth was for several years.

The Life Science Prize has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that (as Dr. Mastropaolo said) “Evolutionists are all bluff with no science, or as they say in the Southwest, all hat and no ranch. They say they have a jumping frog that can beat our jumping frog but they refuse to put their money where their mouths are. Or they say they 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”.


With the Creator March 23, 2021 .