"Bananaman" Comfort challenges RD with $10,000

[queegqueg]

for what it's worth: Dawkins shouldn't debate Comfort because Comfort is dishonest. Example, before his debate with the RRS, Comfort insisted that he would prove god without resorting to the bible. Once it started, Comfort didn't debate, he pulled out his bible and preached.

[Richard Dawkins]

I have just had the following email exchange with a journalist, who seems to be acting as some kind of intermediary on behalf of the Banana Man:

I'm trying to reach Prof. Dawkins for a response to a challenge from author Ray Comfort to
Prof. Dawkins to a debate, with a $10,000 reward to Mr. Dawkins, win, lose
or draw. Would I be able to reach you?
This is an excerpt from the report:

Comfort added, "I will donate $10,000 to him, or give it to any children's
charity he names. All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20
minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will
give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing
more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then
we both will have 10 minutes to respond.

"Sadly, I have found that even evolution's most staunch believers are
afraid to debate, because they know that their case for atheism and
evolution is less than extremely weak," Comfort said. "I would be delighted
(and honored) if Mr. Dawkins has the courage to debate me, but I'm not
holding my breath."

I replied

I'm not aware of having had any communication from Mr Comfort, whom I
know only as the Banana Man (you won't believe what you see if you
take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 -- no it's not a Monty
Python sketch, he really means it).

$10,000 is less than the typical fee that I am ordinarily offered for
lecturing to a serious audience (I often don't accept it, especially
in the case of a student audience, because I am a dedicated teacher).
It is not, therefore, a worthwhile inducement for me to travel all the
way across the Atlantic to debate with an ignorant fool. You can tell
him that if he donates $100,000 to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for
Reason and Science (it's a charitable donation, tax deductible) I'll
do it. A further condition is that it will be filmed by Josh Timonen
for my website, RichardDawkins.net, and distributed by Josh as a DVD,
if he thinks it is funny enough. To this end, it would be nice if Mr
Comfort would reprise the ever popular Banana Sketch.
Richard Dawkins

The journalist replied

Sir, Thank you for your response. And please understand I'm only a reporter
in the middle, but Mr. Comfort has suggested the possibility of raising the
offer to $20,000. Your reaction?

And I replied to this:-

Thank you, yes, I appreciate that you are only a reporter in the middle.

$20,000 is closer to the fees that I am customarily offered. However, I am not in this for the money. My interest is in getting the Banana Man to PART with $100,000 of his money so that that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense. The fact that he would be making a substantial donation to a charity dedicated to Reason and Science adds to the humour of the situation. Talking of humour, by the way, did you look at the great Banana video? It beats the Peanut Butter video for laughs, but only by a short head: http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1258
Richard Dawkins

[IanRaugh]

I have to admit, I admire the use of humour under such circumstances.

It is deliciously ironic that in order to have the debate Mr. Comfort would need to not only set back his own agenda but also help yours, especially if one views the debate as his idea of a means to further his agenda..

[FlyingDutchman]

Haha!

I (vainly) hope Banana Man bites!

[MMAtheist]

that money will NOT be available for buying animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, or other similar nonsense

That's a great plan.
Otherwise it would be an utter waste of time for you. Hopefully he's willing to come up with that kind of money for a public humiliation.

[Jain]

If only he'd donate the $100,000, I'd love to see Josh's video!!! I have no idea how you stop your head from exploding Richard!!

Jain x

[Galactor]

Richard, if you are going to enter the ring with an idiot like this, I would strongly advise that you do it on your patch, your turf and make sure there is as little chance as possible for any hidden cameras and such to make sure that the event isn't "abused for Jeebus".

[Calilasseia]

If "Bananaman" Comfort think evolution is "a fairy tale for grownups", then perhaps he could answer why serious research and development money is being expended on harnessing evolution to produce useful products in a number of fields. Such as this research effort to produce a more efficient hydrogenase enzyme from Escherichia coli bacteria, with a view to harnessing it as a biotechnology alternative to petroleum products for fuelling vehicles. Or this research project to harness evolutionary algorithms for spacecraft antenna design, which has already proven its worth by producing working antennae that have been pressed into service on actual spacecraft.

But then since this is the fuckwit responsible for the "crocoduck", I don't suppose he'll be able to provide any substantive answer to this. I anticipate that his response to this will consist of blather, witless and specious apologetics, and more appeals to the ideological erogenous zones of his constituency, which consists, from what I can gather, of web-footed polydactylous products of recursive genealogy whose collective IQ resides at about the same level as that of the claw clippings from my dead budgie.

[Proper Dave]

Honestly, $100,000/hr is an impressive fee schedule, but I'm not all that sure it's worth it. You should certainly insist that he comps you for the flight, motel, and expenses. On the other hand, if the video is idiotic enough, you may well double your take by selling it. I watch everything I can by that guy just because it's so bloody funny.

P
D

[Matt H.]

Bravo! I really doubt he's got that much cash, but it won't stop him from issuing more challenges.

On a very much related note, the Discovery Institute is still trying to make itself look legitimate by attempting to get scientists to debate them:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... sts_to.php

Dear Professor Gotelli,

I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I'll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views--in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.

I'm hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.

A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer's book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design."

On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.

Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?

With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

"Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.