This was the reply from the group involved in making the book.
Thanks so much for taking our Atheist Challenge. You are quite an excellent wordsmith and we can see why your writings are so popular. Keep up the good work of debunking religion and standing up for reason and Science.
I will, but it seems a little odd for you guys to be saying this, given that – while you’ve made a little progress – you’re still twisting the science to try and fit your religious desires.
We’ve dealt with many atheists on this challenge — and without trying to sound too elitist — or arrogant — unfortunately, you’ve been the most desperate to declare yourself the winner. Totally understandable.
Not so much. Just rather disappointed that the promised evidence for your religious claims was not forthcoming. My lack of belief wasn’t even challenged at all! All rather disappointing.
But for us ( at this point in time) it is not too economical for us to engage with you at this level of the science/creation debate. You would be great debating creationist. Plus, we are way too busy taking on Creationists, debunking Creation Science and defending Science. There are lots of Creationists out there that we both need to acclimatize to reason and Science.
Trying to reconcile religion and science is not going to do the trick. You have taken only the smallest of steps towards any sort of progress and it is all based on just creating your own interpretation – as I intimated.
Still, we noticed that the phenomenology of losing our challenge seem unbearable — judging from responses. You have such fire! Awesome! Your responses and your lessons on science (like the Earth is not as old as the Universe blew us away) only demonstrated to us that we are either on different levels of the science/creation debate — or you simply cut and pasted your usual creationist comebacks (like the proper sequence of geological history).
You didn’t really present anything new. You’re making slightly less common mistakes but they’re still plenty common and amply debunked. I long for the day when the arguments change and, as a consequence, the refutations do.
Or you hurried through the essay, cherry-picked little things to show your mastery of science and at debunking Christians, to declare to your audience: “I WIN.”
But we must remind you — we told you from Square One ( several times) that we embrace the cosmological and biological history of our planet—and evolutionary biology. And we will actually be in a trial to defend Science — against Creation Science. Yet your entire review was to feverishly teach us Gr 3 science.
And yet the book does not really display such embracing. You have just presented your own version thereof using the post-hoc rationalisation I went into.
So, yes — We are a bit disappointed but still, thank you so much for participating and we will certainly love to refresh the page with you at a later date. Also we need your help. We are looking for professional scientists in California to be our witnesses in an important Trial to defend Science and defeat this Creationist guy in court in August — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/joseph-mastropaolo-creationist-10000-disprove-genesis_n_2964801.html
I can’t see you as much better than them to be honest and I don’t think this hybrid approach is going to get much traction. I’m also unconvinced of the worth of engaging creationists in these sorts of arenas.
I was told there would be a challenge to my (lack of) belief and that there would be evidence to support your religious conclusions. That was not the case. If you ever feel like delivering, look me up.