Replies

But isn't evolution being taught in schools prescribed by a judge or a group of judges who are not scientists?

Religious content is sometimes removed from schools based upon the First Amendment non-establishment clause. The US Supreme Court did this and lower judges from time to time reinterpret the ruling to cover increasingly cagey attempts to circumvent it. That's not because the courts really determine what's true in science but because the courts are the arm of the government that settles disputes over what goes on in government schools.

All creationist arguments are so shell-game twist-and-shout nothing-up-my-sleeves slithering slimey bogus.

One thing that my friend espouses too is - the "fact" not a theory of devolution . That all living things will all die. Care to comment on this one?

... Because a human woman listened to a talking snake 6000 years ago, before which nothing ever died. Now even amoebas have to die eventually, if only when the Sun goes red giant.

I don't think much of the idea. Useless and a curious illustration of what God is supposed to consider as justice. He'd be pretty crappy to behave that way if that story were true, but I don't think it's true.

As for what your friend should do, he should just get on the web with everyone else and make his case. His bogus prize is the same fairy money as Kent Hovind's. (Although some people have tried to accept Hovind's offer and haven't had much luck.)

Anyway, I'm not a Ph.D type, either, so I'm not eligible. That said, your kinesiologist buddy is out of his league with anyone who actually knows some molecular bio and/or paleontology. Tell him to log onto FR and let fly and we'll see how he stacks up.

That brings up another question, though. Would your friend take on a molecular biologist and a paleontologist at once in the same "trial?" That's another thing that happens in these discussions on the web. Every mistatement he makes has a chance of being caught by somebody or other, although not perhaps by just one guy head-to-head. For a creationist, that tends to be a lot of corrections. Even so an ICR-type article is so incredibly full of BS that it's a "Where to begin?" experience. Even with all the corrections, a lot of BS sneaks by.