I already read that page (and the rest of the relevant pages) before I made and posted my opinion about the disingenuous nature of the "offer". I stand by my assessment.
The list of "judges" doesn't prove a thing. Even if the list is a valid one of people who have actually agreed to participate as judges (and there's no way to tell), it's not hard for any group, no matter who they are, to get some big-name scientists to agree to be "on call" to review a paper or two if you promise to pay them for their time, as the website indicates is the case. It doesn't mean that the prospective "judges" even know much about the "foundation" or approve/disapprove of the Foundation or its project.
A strong indication that this is indeed the case can be found on this discussion thread, where this "offer" was being discussed. The following post is instructive:
I contacted Blair Hedges, supposedly one of the confirmed judges, and he says that he has heard that the website is linked to a creationist group. He has requested that they remove his name from their site.So clearly one of the "judges" was hardly on intimate terms with the "Foundation" itself. Agreeing to judge (and from the above, it's not even clear that he *had* agreed) does not constitute an endorsement or even familiarity with the Foundation.
From one of the Foundation's directors himself:
Many well-known investigators such as Francis Crick and Sir Frederick Hoyle have written kind letters explaining that they have changed interests or are now getting up in years and regrettably cannot assume new academic responsibilities. Others like Stanley Miller explained that they were already too over committed to judge.So again, it looks as if they just sent out letters to lots of known names in the field and asked them if they'd agree to review submitted papers, for a fee. Heck, if they make me the same offer I'd accept too -- reviewing papers for money is an easy gig.
Additionally, lots of scientists like to accept offers like that because it helps puff up their resume to be a "consulting reviewer" on various projects. Note that this guy has done that very thing for his "position" as "Elected Member, International Board of Judges" to the "Gene Emergence Project" (under the "Memberships" section).
Furthermore, an earlier "announcement" issued by that website included a lot of "big names" as if they were likely to be involved with the project, but note how few of them actually ended up on the "judges" list (practically none). I only spot a couple of really "big names" on the final list (Freeman Dyson and Frank Drake), and their fields are only tangentially related to the subject. I also note a lot of "huh?" names on the list, like the guy whose organizational affiliation is "Mobil Oil". Ooookay...
But the above is not why I find the "offer" to be highly questionable -- it's just the reason(s) I find the list of judges to be unimpressive.
I find the offer to be questionable mainly because the "science" discussion on the first several pages is full of buzzword gobbledegook and classic creationist canards/misunderstandings about evolution and science.
Furthermore, the list of requirements is so long and unreasonably stringent (I doubt even quantum theory or relativity could pass the kind of hurdles this "offer" lays out) that contrary to their claim, the authors aren't asking for an "explanation" of the origins of life, they're demanding a fully complete, fully mature field in which all questions have been completely answered. Any submission that could actually meet their standards would pretty much close the book on an entire field of biology. Such expectations are not reasonable ones -- they're offering a $1 million dollar "prize" for what would amount to be a billion dollars worth and many decades of research. Do they really expect anyone to try to claim it?
Additionally, their claimed motives are highly suspect. They claim to be trying to "encourage the pursuit" of research in this field, but as was well expressed on this discussion thread, if they were truly interested in that end they'd be far more effective offerring a million-dollar *grant* to the most promising applicant and *directly* enabling more research, than to instead say, "if someone wants to answer all our questions, we'll reward them years after they've finished".
Finally, there are so many "gotchas" in the requirements and rules that it's clear the Foundation has no intention of ever letting anyone win.
Who is to say that does not define your first reference, wherein no testable mechanism for self-organizing matter is hypothesized?
And so we should assume credibilty for those who claim they have a testable hypothesis whereby they can demonstrate a mechanism for the self-oraginzation of random matter? I don't think so.
Dang those old "gotchas" anyway. They take so much out of the paycheck.
I would however like to make one observation: