This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Why I Won't Debate Creationists

Why I Won't Debate Creationists - Comments

RichardPrins's Avatar Comment 1 by RichardPrins

Maybe creationists like in the first comment would be so good to show any evidence for their theological theories published in any peer-reviewed journal. I doubt they're capable of doing that since they are already not able to find any scientific work by Gould or Dawkins, but instead have to resort to their usual lies and/or distortions.

Their post also makes clear it makes very little sense to debate them, seeing how they have to resort to labelling people with psychological conditions and other various sorts of name-calling. Perhaps they, like some of their creationist colleagues, bought their titles on the internet or from some bogus religious university to give the appearance of respectability?

Get over yourselves, do some real research and try to get published in a scientific journal, instead of slandering real scientists and science in general in favour of your god-driven hypotheses.

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:35:00 UTC | #21510

Easy Lover's Avatar Comment 2 by Easy Lover

This would be the Jospeh Mastropaolo of the "rocket scientist" fame then? The guy that allowed himself to be described as such becuase he was involved in designing the seats on the space shuttle.

Instead of Ad Hom attacks and the arguement from personal incredulity why don't you post some evidence for your claims? Is it because you don't have any?

[quote]They are peas in a pod, both quack essayists of a 2,500 year old pagan religion that masquerades as science.[/quote]

I thought the "evilutionists" had only been around since the time of Darwin.

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:56:00 UTC | #82161

Thebabelfish's Avatar Comment 3 by Thebabelfish

I can understand the reason for not holding a public debate as these can be rigged against you as well as being used as a tool to get the crazies fame.

However there are many of us at that write articles concerning your work and up hold your opinions, we are course the logical free thinkers that have not fell fowl to religious indoctrination.

Newsvine is a news community and I am one of it citizens journalist.

Babel Fish

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:44:00 UTC | #107461

RationalMan16's Avatar Comment 4 by RationalMan16

Karl Priest?

The same Karl Priest who preyed on innocent middle school children by severely distorting the theory of evolution with MATHEMATICS?

This man is a hypocrite. He actually had the gall to call a tenured professor a coward, when in reality the only way he can satisfy his distorted and deluded worldview is by blatantly misrepresenting evolution with a field that doesn't even relate to evolutionary biology, and then by pushing it on children in a MATH class.

What a slimy, subhuman, lowlife schmuck.

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:02:00 UTC | #189829

obscured by clouds's Avatar Comment 5 by obscured by clouds

I think this is a great article that most might not have read, since it was posted so long ago.

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:53:00 UTC | #194063

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 6 by Szymanowski

Yep, that's a great article, and the first comment is suitably amusing!

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:52:00 UTC | #194425

Beyond's Avatar Comment 7 by Beyond

Creationists are not narrow-minded fundamentalists, backwoods, or rabid religious fanatics.-just world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer, the third most cited chemist in the world. James Tour of Rice University's Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology; Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale. Among us is the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, scientists from the Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, the National Museum of National History at the Smithsonian Institute, the Los Alamos National Lab and the Lawrence Livermore Lab. We include professors from Yale, M.I.T., Tulane, USC, Stanford, Cornell, Princeton and Duke.
After the PBS seven part tele series "evolution" we have spoken out. We as a group have published a two page ad under the banner " A scienctific Dissent From Darwinism". Our statement: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
We have published a detailed,151 page critique showing the failure tp present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the evidence for Darwinian evolution and even systematically ignoring disagreements among evolutionary biologists themselves. Signed and delivered by the top scientists in their field.
There is a reason there is no debate. It not because of media attention, but because the facts can not hold true under todays evaluations.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:52:00 UTC | #245556

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 8 by ConcernedEducator

I'm glad I found this site!
I have been corresponding with the great Karl Priest (or is it Joseph Mastropaolo - considering the contents of many of his/their posts, Multiple Personality Disorder cannot be ruled out) and am now dealing with tracking down the evasive coward.

Karl recently decided to invade the NPR(National Public Radio) forums with his religious propaganda. I have since refuted 4 of the claims he made, and asked for a reply each time - of course, none was forthcoming.

I then took the added step of emailing Karl directly twice, as follows:
"Hey Karl - you fled the NPR forums without responding to any questions, so I thought I'd track you down.
I've read your article, and all the related sites, including the Exodus Mandate(it was really funny!).
No hint of any empirical evidence to back any of your claims...where is it at? I would love to see it.
And the second one:
"Aren't you the same Karl Priest who stalks prominent scientists like Richard Dawkins, and calls them cowards for not debating you directly?
All of my correspondence with you (one way so far) is being archived - your hypocrisy and dishonesty will be available for all to see.
Time will tell who the REAL coward is. ;)"

And still, as of this very moment, not one reply from the prominent "Dr" Priest...I wish I could say I was surprised.

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:20:00 UTC | #326561

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 9 by ConcernedEducator

UPDATE - latest email (all still unanswered) to Karl Priest:
Hello again Karl,

Creationists should be careful of the comments they make - they can come back to haunt them:

"You, Karl Priest, are an intellectual coward. You are scared to defend your psuedoscience on a level playing field. You have defaulted out of fear." (notice I did not correct the grammatical errors from his original comment)

It's so refreshing when hypocrites are revealed to the world for all to see, and using their own words no less!


Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:09:00 UTC | #326736

severalspeciesof's Avatar Comment 10 by severalspeciesof

Welcome ConcernedEducator...

Stay with this site and you'll meet all kinds of wack-a-loons...

Myself included... ;-)

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:31:00 UTC | #326749

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 11 by SaganTheCat


looking forward to seeing if you get any responses. having only joined a few months ago i hadn't caught up with this thread but it does serve as a good reminder for me to try not to feed trolls as well!

I shall now scout through and see if I can find similar threads ("why I don't pick knife fights with toddlers", "Why I don't drag race against tortoises" and "Why I still can't get channel 5 on my tumble dryer")

best of luck!

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:41:00 UTC | #326756

heathen2's Avatar Comment 12 by heathen2

Yesterday, I came across the middle of a debate between Dan Barker and some religious (one Christian and one Muslim) scientists (?). I think it was entitled "Does God not not exist?" or something to that effect.The audience was stacked with head scarfed ladies who clapped at every attack by the Muslim man, who was very aggressive and continually hurled derision toward a polite and reasonable Dan Barker. I had to stop watching, it just made me angry. In addition to the dismissive comments (by the Muslim man) there was a real tone of threat toward Dan and his team mate. I don't think there is any point debating these people either, they won't hear reason.

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:28:00 UTC | #326786

severalspeciesof's Avatar Comment 13 by severalspeciesof


Where did you see the debate? I'd like to give it a look...


[Edit: I think I found it]

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:56:00 UTC | #326795

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 15 by ConcernedEducator

Here is the website currently hosting Karl Priest's creationist propaganda:

Since the website is billed as an Education site, I alerted the moderator that a Creationist was using the site to promote a religious agenda.

His reply?
"Considering the massive one-sided views in many publications a true variety should be welcome but as always some simple minded people have to finger point and grip." - Jimmy Kilpatrick

One sided views? Simple minded people?
Unsupported claims and baseless insults...the hallmark of the Creationist.

I've since sent correspondence requesting that change the deceptive "educational" name of their site.

Notice the last comment(and the Editor's Note that was added, complete with insults) - and feel free to leave your own!

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:31:00 UTC | #326873

heathen2's Avatar Comment 16 by heathen2


Sorry I was gone for awhile. Yes, this is the debate. I started in the middle, part 3/4 when they are at the debate tables. I couldn't go back to it, it was too difficult. What did you think of it?

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:43:00 UTC | #326987

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 17 by ConcernedEducator

UPDATE: Karl finally replies!

Hey ConcernedEducator:
At least I am man enough to sign my name.
If you have any science--go for the $10K LSP. A lot of cowards are listed at the Life Science Prize website. Maybe all of you can evolve some courage--or honesty.
Otherwise, do not contact me again.
Karl Prieset
Wow! It would appear Karl has changed his last name...interesting.

Anyway, my reply:
Dear Karl,

THANK YOU!!!! For bringing up the Life Science prize!

Here's the deal - I'm going to go ahead and agree with everything you have to say against evolutionary theory...all of it, consider it thrown out.

Now it's PUT UP OR SHUT UP time - present your empirical evidence for the alternate theory you've been claiming as fact.

Anything less will be considered yet another evasion attempt by a spineless charlatan.

Thank you.

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:26:00 UTC | #327095

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 18 by ConcernedEducator

UPDATE - I finally took the time (30 minutes of my life I will never get back) to check out the Life Science Prize, and in light of new "revelations" have sent another email to Karl:

Karl - don't disregard my last email - but I'd like to go ahead and accept the LSP (and the prize money)

According to the terms of this challenge, the evolutionist and creationist each put $10,000 in escrow; they present their evidence in a courthouse to a mutually agreeable trial court judge; the judge decides which side has the science and which is religion; the side declared science wins, the side declared religion loses.
This challenge has already been met, Karl old chap!
And I already have $10,000 in escrow. ;)
(oh and you don't get to PICK YOUR OWN JUDGE in a trial, how silly!)
Conclusion of the trial:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Now, are you going to arrange for the payment of my $10,000 - or can we add "lying" to the already infamous title "creationist"?

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:02:00 UTC | #327130

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 19 by ConcernedEducator

As predicted, no admissal of responsibility...and not one shred of evidence in Mr. Priest(or is it Prieset?)'s final reply to me:
"Dear Coward:
Karl Priest"

No evidence, no rebuttal to my successful completion of the LSP "challenge" - and he's blocked any further correspondence.

THIS is the guy calling Dawkins and others cowards? What's next, the leader of the KKK calling human rights advocates racists?

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:46:00 UTC | #327164

Daedalus5's Avatar Comment 20 by Daedalus5

Why does a kineseologist think he knows more about biology than the man who revolutionized our understanding of the gene? or for that matter the entire National Academy of Science.

Im confused, but dosent he study joints? not even the brain, an obviously trial and error endeavor, but ligaments and tendons.

If thats the best creationists can do, even their god is not impressed.

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:08:00 UTC | #327171

Daedalus5's Avatar Comment 21 by Daedalus5

heres another point.

From the list of "debate dogers":

89. Dr. George V. Coyne, S.J. Director of the Vatican Observatory
96. Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, Director, Vatican Project on Science, Theology and Ontological Quest (STOQ).

right, challenge the Vatican on knowledge of the Scriptures vs. evolution.


99.Brahama D. Sharma, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life). Life fellow (chemistry) of the Royal Society. He corresponded on behalf of the Royal Society and confirmed that none of them had any scientific evidence in support of evolution in spite of the fact that the Royal Society stated publicly on 11 April 2006 that evolution is “recognized as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species" and that it is "rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world." Evidently, the Royal Society is an ethically incompetent mouthpiece for worldwide evolutionist propaganda.


12. Dr. Eugenie Scott. Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, misnamed National Center for Anti-Science Evolution Indoctrination

14. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Oxford University, Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Possibly the world's foremost propagandist for evolution possesses not one iota of scientific evidence.

Wow. Slander and outright lies in a list read predominately by "ignant people" made by god in 6 days.
"looks like he rushed it!"-Bill Hicks

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:32:00 UTC | #327189

Daedalus5's Avatar Comment 22 by Daedalus5

oh shit...

they challenged the POPE!

143. Professor Joseph Alois Ratzinger, made the public statement that, “This clash (with evolution) is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” He was unable to send one iota of scientific proof of evolution and of course would not contend for the unlimited Life Science Prizes.

And at the end of it all claim they beat evolution in 4.6 years. Does anyone remember reading that evolution was disproven? "Just because you claim it dosent make it so."

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:39:00 UTC | #327195

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 23 by ConcernedEducator

For anyone following, here was my last reply before I realized Karl had permanently fled the debate:
Um, Karl? Calling someone a coward is fine and all, but doing it while you run away?

It looks like Dr. Dawkins' analogy of the Black Knight from Monty Python was spot on!

If your intent was anything BUT humor, you've failed (again).
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
Karl Priest
(reason: 550 theinsectman IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER)

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:00 UTC | #327508

Tezcatlipoca's Avatar Comment 24 by Tezcatlipoca

Here's a post from Phyrangula where the Discovery Institute, and the rest of these IDiots in my opinion, get pwnd by Prof.Gotelli from the Univ. of Vermont

How to respond to requests to debate creationists

It was Gotelli's response was written in reply to a request by a Dr Klinghoffer, from The Discovery Institute, for a debate. It could as just as well by written by Karl Priest or any of the rest.

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:49:00 UTC | #327526

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 25 by ConcernedEducator

To answer any possible future questions about my choice of avatar:
Karl Priest, the creationist, lists his public email address as

I raise ducks, and know one simple fact about them; they eat insects for breakfast. :)

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:21:00 UTC | #327544

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 26 by ConcernedEducator

As a finalè, I'd like to propose why, at some point, these creationists WILL need to be put in their place, debate forum or otherwise.

To ignore them and ridicule them, as much as they deserve it, only leads to things like this:

They must be confronted and crazy as it sounds, all that measure needs to pass is 241,153 registered voters to sign it...and I don't want to gamble on whether or not there are that many creationists in Washington State!

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:18:00 UTC | #327611

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 27 by ConcernedEducator

Another reason not to ignore the Creationists...their scathing attacks in the aftermath.

Not that anyone in a professional field would give them credence, but here's a reply from a everyday US citizen after finding out Professor Gotelli refused the latest debate challenge from the Discovery Institute:
"Gotelli, I am sure your students are proud that you chickened out to debate the evil creationists.

By the way, I don't recall historians refusing to debate holocaust deniers......

Must be something particular to darwinism!"

And there is the problem. As a wise man once said "For evil to flourish, all good men need do is nothing"

These people aren't going away, and ignoring them only emboldens their cause.

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:03:00 UTC | #327648

heathen2's Avatar Comment 28 by heathen2

I understand the need on the part of scientists to do something about the creationists. I don't think debates with atheists work for the reasons that Dawkins explained in the article and also because there is no getting through to them (as evidenced by the Dan Barker debate referenced above by severalspeciesof). Probably most effective may be when religious scientists (such as Kenneth Miller) debate the creationists. I do feel the urgency though, since our educational system is affected.

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:19:00 UTC | #327658

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 29 by ConcernedEducator

"I don't think debates with atheists work"
Did you read my posts with the transcript between me and Karl Priest? I exposed his fraud and sent him scurrying...yeah, he was still flinging insults, but he fled nonetheless.

THIS is what we need to start doing. Every time an evolutionary biologist, professor, etc. refuses to debate these clowns, they gain public support ("hey, would you look at that? Dawkins backed down from a creationism debate...again! What's he so afraid of? Why is he hiding?").

Just confront them, exact admission of no evidence/valid platform from them, and "kick their ass to the curb" so to speak.

Plus, it gives you a warm, tingly feeling inside!

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:50:00 UTC | #327667

ConcernedEducator's Avatar Comment 30 by ConcernedEducator

BREAKING NEWS: NPR (National Public Radio) has just given a legitimate platform to a member of the Discovery Institute, Michael Egnor. No, I am NOT kidding!!!!!

Still think ignoring the creationists is the correct course of action?

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:33:00 UTC | #328329