Joined: Aug. 2006
The originator of the Hydroplate Theory challenges anyone, and particularly any evolutionist, who doubts his theory to a book-length written debate. His terms should appeal readily to anyone who truly believes that he can defend evolution, and to a publisher interested in a controversial subject.
The debate question is simple:
Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution?
Brown offers himself to debate the creation-science side, and asks only that the leader of the evolutionary team hold a doctorate in either the basic or applied sciences. (Brown holds a doctorate in engineering, the prototypical "applied science.") Brown includes that, not to say that someone without a doctorate is unqualified, but to rule out "lack of scientific qualifications" as a reason for a poor performance in the debate by either side. When an evolutionist has agreed to participate, then and only then will the selection of an editor-moderator become appropriate.
The two sides will choose one between them at random to recruit an editor and publisher. Then the other side may either accept that editor or try to recruit one of its own to offer as an alternate. The back-and-forth nominating will continue until one side has received three nominations, at which time it must select one of the three. The qualifications for an editor-moderator are:
1. His publishing house must have more than $10 million US in annual sales, and
2. He must not have a strong opinion either way on the creation-evolution controversy.
(Brown next proposes to outsource the design of the book. Brown is self-published, and needed to recruit his own book-design experts. A publisher with $10 million US in annual sales almost certainly has its own art department, a fact with which Brown might not be familiar.)
Each side must then submit four manuscripts, each having 100,000 words, or the equivalent in text and graphics, with each graphic regarded as equivalent to 200 words. The submissions are due in four-months intervals, beginning four months after the two sides agree on the selection of an editor. The editor's first job is to strike from each submission all religious ideas, "unprofessional remarks," or dilatory comments. The editor must then transmit both submissions to each side within a month of receiving them. The editor also would have full authority to call an early halt to the debate if he decides that one side or the other is not participating fairly.
(YEC Terry Hurlbut, one of Conservapedia's Digg Patriots)
Who could resist such a challenge? :p
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."