A couple weeks ago, I got a few emails from someone betting me $10.000.00 that I couldn’t prove evolution before a hand-picked Superior court judge. I said that I could actually. However there was a catch. I had to put up $10,000.00 of my own money, and risk that to bypass -and ignore- the peer review process, in order to have evolution proven to a single person rather than a consensus of experts. This guy wants an environment where I am at the most disadvantaged, in that evidence cannot be presented. Thus the strength of a confident sales pitch in a single informal courtroom can override many decades of academic data gathered by the global scientific community, and be potentially overturned in the media based on the opinion of a layman already biased against science with religious conviction -according to the conditions of the game.
Now this guy, Dr Joseph Mastropaolo is in the news making his absurd challenge, and he even admits that the venue and the rules of the bet are designed such that [he thinks] evidence would be rendered inadmissible.
It seems like this guy doesn’t understand how science works with regard to evidence in peer review, but more likely he does understand that. He knows that can’t work in his favor, but he holds the opinion that conviction and appearances matter more than accuracy or accountability. Where sensational publicity matter more than testable experiments. In other words, he’s a typically dishonest creationist.