http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html
1.1 How long has this Challenge been open?
The Challenge was first introduced in 1964 when James Randi offered
1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers in a controlled test. The prize has since grown to One Million Dollars.
1.2 How many people have applied for the Challenge?
Between 1964 and 1982, Randi declared that over 650 people had applied. Between 1997 and 2005, there had been a total of 360 official, notarized applications. New applications for the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge continue to be received every month.
1.3 Has anyone ever passed the preliminary test?
No.
1.4 Has anyone taken a formal test?
Yes. However, the vast majority of applicants and claimants for the Million Dollar Challenge have not taken a formal test, because none of them have passed the preliminary phase of the Challenge.
![1,000 of his own money to the first person who could offer proof of the paranormal. During a live radio panel discussion, James Randi was challenged by a parapsychologist to "put [his] money where [his] mouth is", and Randi responded by offering to pay](http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-ec92d1d7fdf8658bb2bb4d7995abaab6_l3.png "Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com")
1,000 to anyone who could demonstrate paranormal powers in a controlled test. The prize has since grown to One Million Dollars.I would generally think in light of this, paranormal phenomenon are mostly non-existent. I have a lot of skilled gambling friends (some have made millions) and the question of prayer or paranormal phenomenon occasionally comes up when they consider it as a possible angle to make more money. The consensus is that no skilled gambler made money using the paranormal or prayers.
Nevertheless, there are surprisingly modest numbers of Christians who are skilled gamblers who use mathematics to extract advantage in the gambling world. Perhaps the most known names are Doyle Brunson (became a Christian after miraculous healing) and Kevin Blackwood, the others are anonymous for good reasons.
It doesn’t seem that miracles follow any formula, but it seems there are events way out of expectation which some could call miraculous, imho. There was some paranormal phenomenon in my family. I don’t like to talk about it too much because it was creepy. Materialism was in many ways a safer place to be psychologically for me, and hence my interest in science rather than seances, but I think there is a sinister spiritual realm out there for sure which generally eludes the scientific method.
If there is an active spiritual realm out there, it is taking great pains to elude James Randi’s challenge, otherwise James Randi is right, there is no paranormal realm. Analogously, if there is an Intelligent Designer, like paranormal phenomenon, He is avoiding direct means of communicating His existence and has chosen to leave designs and remain mostly out of notice ever since the act of creating the designs. If the Intelligent Designer communicated through the heavens as in the account of Moses, we might not be having the debates we’re having…
I think highly of James Randi’s challenge and for its exposure of many charlatans. I think most religious beliefs are rooted in superstition, coincidence, irrationality and gullibility. I especially saw the casinos profiting from these human weaknesses, and I admit I indirectly profited by other people’s gullibility since I preyed on the casinos who preyed on the gullible.
That said, neither can I run away from personal experience or observation. I briefly met astronaut Charles Duke when he spoke at Campus Crusade for Christ. He walked on the moon, was an Annapolis Naval Academy and MIT Engineering graduate. He was a skilled fighter pilot and then found fame and fortune before becoming a Christian. After his conversion, he testifies of having his prayer for a blind girl answered by when her sight was restored. He probably wouldn’t pass the James Randi challenge either, but neither, given Duke’s career accomplishments, does he have much incentive to be making up fanciful stories, especially in an increasingly anti-Christian climate.
The most successful gamblers I know hate superstition and use of intuition, they love cold hard numbers and rationality. But still, many of the highly successful professional gambler’s I know are split over whether they believe in the paranormal or not. It seems this question is something all their high powered math cannot conclusively answer given the little evidence we have in hand.
There are countless of papers full of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.
There are no papers that show it is either a sufficient or a necessary process to produce life, because no such study is possible. We know it is not sufficient (because it doesn’t account for the earliest self-replicators) and we know it is not necessary (if we postulate an omnipotent designer).
Elizabeth,
Then simply name the most persuasive Lizzie, what is so hard about that? That is what you are asking William to do.
phoodoo,
Phoodoo, I am saying what I said in my previous post. Randi is asking for a practical demonstration of a phenomenon claimed to exist, just as Lederberg is a practical demonstration of unguided evolution – even though the mutations ‘already existed’, there was presumably a time when they did not. Let’s refine the setup to test that, shall we? Paging Dr Lenski …
You are not. You are asking for ‘a paper on evolution that proves it’.
Spoilt for choice, phoodoo!
But some classics would be:
The Grants’ work on Galapagos Finch Beaks
Endler’s work on guppies
Lenksi et al’s work both on bacteria and on AVIDA
The discovery of Tiktaalik as predicted
The discovery of Ediacaran fauna
Virtually any palaeontological studies using phylogenetic analysis
Population Genetics work on drift
Molecular biological studies on the primate Vitamin C gene
Most of biological anthropology.
The success of GAs to actually design things that have stumped human designers.
There’s a start, anyway!
Elizabeth,
William also gave you a list of about ten, but you asked for the one that is the best.
You say spoiled for choice, but the fact is that most of these show no evidence whatsoever for Darwinian evolution. Are we to believe that “The success of GAs to actually design things that have stumped human designers” is the best evidence there is for Darwinian evolution?
So which of these is the best? How can I evaluate it, if you can’t even pick one.
This would be like William simply saying to you…all of the studies on paranormal activity, now go find them. Surely you are more sincere that that right?
Allan Miller,
I am asking you to provide the same sort of evidence that Randi expects someone to provide, which would win them one million dollars.
I don’t think a study which shows that bacteria have different strains in a petri dish accomplishes that.
Honestly Lizzie, you know somethings about Darwinian evolution claims right?
And you claim the discovery Tiktaalik as predicted is the best evidence for Darwinian evolution?
Never mind that the prediction that it was one of the first transitions from water to land, turned out to be a few 10 million years off, but how is this evidence for Darwinian evolution anymore than it is for ID?
You pretend to care about finding truth, not about preaching a faith, and then you say things like this, which are so clearly untrue. Does precision, and intellectual integrity mean nothing to you? You know full well this is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. How is one to accept that you are discussing in good faith? I have to assume that you really aren’t aware of this?
Or is it that you want to try to argue for a theory of evolution which means nothing? Which has no theory at all about how? Which just says there is common designs, and we assume they all came from the same place, but we don’t know why?
phoodoo,
Lederberg is the same sort of evidence. It’s a demonstration that mutations are unguided, at least under that experimental protocol. Moving pencils with mind powers is just as trivial as wiping petri dishes, in terms of the apparatus required. Obviously, the phenomenon is more controversial, but so what? JFDI.
You aren’t looking for the same sort of evidence at all. You want someone to ‘prove evolution’. All of it.
What are the terms of your challenge, then? You really aren’t clear. Randi is asking for a demonstration of a claimed phenomenon. One that can easily be achieved in a reasonable space and time, were these hucksters not so ‘shy’ with their powers. What evolutionary phenomenon would you like demonstrated? Bear in mind it must be practical (like Randi’s).
Allan Miller,
That the theory of evolution is true.
Showing that in a petri dish there are many slightly different versions of a bacteria shows absolutely nothing about evolution being true. Randi would have to laugh at you. No rather, he would simply say, I am Randi, I am a busy guy, I don’t have time for the meaningless proposals.
It is as if I proposed to Randi, I am going to bring you a paper airplane and show that it can fly. So now that we know things can fly with nothing, its possible pencils can also fly, if we will them too.
All you have shown is that there are variations in a petri dish full of bacteria.
Which is, by definition, evolution.
QED, phoodoo. Give it, phoodoo, you owe me the million dollars for your challenge.
Phoodoo, exactly WTF do you think evolution is, if it isn’t variation?
‘Demonstrate a psi phenomenon’ vs ‘prove that the theory of evolution is true’. They’re the same, are they?
Well, except for the fact that tons and tons more money, along with the weight of every university and scientific society, and pop media outlet has been trying to prove evolution, and still can’t-yea I guess pretty similar.
No one in science has been trying to “prove” evolution. Scientific ideas aren’t “proven”, they are supported. Extremely well supported scientific ideas like evolution have obtained theory status by dint of their enormous volume of positive supporting evidence. You’ve already had many pieces of that positive supporting evidence shown to you but looks like you just don’t have the scientific background to grasp what’s been presented.
Adapa,
Best one?
phoodoo,
Probably the best indication of the quality of the evidence is the total demise of creationism/designism as a scientific paradigm. Its modern fandom consists of maverick amateurs with a mission — from random philosophers, preachers, surgeons, computer programmers and mathematicians to fridge repair persons, journalists, lawyers and miscellaneous Internet plankton. Conspicuous by their nearly complete absence are biologists with an IQ in the three digits — the people qualified to evaluate the evidence.
ah, the argument from authority rears its ugly head.
…er, logic and reason trump authority.
Unguided evolution defies logic and reason.
On the contrary, design is observed in Man in particular and in nature in general. What design Man has discovered is already present in nature. Since Man designs, and is embedded in nature, then nature is obviously the ultimate author of design.
If biologists with high IQs cannot arrive at such a straight forward, logical conclusion, then so much for high IQs.
To be as polite as I can, this is mere hubris.
All of the supposed positive evidence for evolution is presented on a bed of co-opted designed objects, like reproduction, endo-symbiosis, feedback loops, etc etc.
Evolution is powerless without design. It never gets off the ground.
Why not just dispense with the evolution charade and keep the designed objects. Adapa?
No, the argument from authority would run like, “Thus spake Darwin, therefore it must be true.” The assumption of the inerrancy of the Bible, to which so may UDites subscribe, is like that. I’m merely pointing out that those who, by virtue of their training and experience are best qualified to evaluate the evidence, unanimously agree that the evidence is valid. My appeal is to the practically universal consensus of experts — people who carry out and publish research. Surely a lawyer like Barry Arrington, a philosopher like V.J. Torley, or a linguist like myself — in brief, lay folk — have a limited understanding of the relevant science.
Note that Barry, for example, is very eager to discuss atheist morality, the first cause, the ontology of consciousness, etc., but is completely ignorant of the most elementary technicalities of evolutionary biology. It’s much more convenient for him (though not valid scientifically) to condemn it all ex cathedra on moral, philosophical or theological grounds than to engage in anything as mundane as the discussion of the scientific evidence. I don’t think he believes the evidence (which he doesn’t understand anyway and which is all “sewage” and “blah-blah-blah” to him) matters at all.
Oh, really. How and why? Which principle(s) of logic are violated?
Try not to argue from personal incredulity (I can’t believe X, therefore X must be false).
phoodoo,
Finances are not really relevant. If A says to B “convince me by controlled demonstration that your phenomenon is real” and C says to D “prove to my satisfaction that all of X is (or, Zammit-version: isn’t) true”, radically different challenges are being issued. That D may have vastly more resources than B does not speak to this distinction. How much does it cost to bend a spoon anyway?
I think phoodoo’s challenge here would be best stated as a request for scientific evidence for the assumed sufficiency of the “undirected by intelligence” characterization of Darwinistic evolution.
There are many aspects of what I’ll call Non-Ideologically-Biased evolutionary theory that are not challenged at all by ID per se, such as common descent or that (NIB)selection and (NIB)mutation play important roles.
Simply referring to evolutionary papers and books doesn’t provide what is being challenged; I think EL has already admitted that what is being challenged cannot be produced – that the assumedly unguided-by-intelligence nature of evolutionary processes have not been, and to date cannot be, vetted as categorically or even in principle sufficient to plausibly account for what we see in biology.
That materialist conceptualization of what evolution is, is simply assumed.
In order to provide such evidence as the challenge calls for, it would require Darwinists to produce a ID/non-ID (or natural & chance/artifice) differential metric capable of describing what Darwinistic evolution is and is not capable of plausibly producing given the available time and resources. That differential matrix is something that Darwinists insist does not exist.
IOW, you cannot demonstrate nature & chance forces & interactions categorically, causally sufficient to account for evolutionary product. You cannot rule out ID as a necessary causal contributor; you just assume its absence.
While there may be an enormous amount of evidence for (NIB)Evolution, there is, to my knowledge, no (or at least minimal) evidence for Darwinistic evolution.
William,
In your opinion, is there such a thing as a “fair die”?
Crank challenges to mainstream science don’t even rise to the level of boring. Behe is interesting. He requires a thoughtful response. I don’t know of anyone else in the ID movement who requires a response.
What part of
…didn’t you understand?
Show me the single tree that proves the existence of the Amazon rainforest. Show me the single gallon of water that proves the existence of the Pacific Ocean. Your demand is equally inane.
But paranormal claims seem to have dried up just as we have the technology to record events and put them on YouTube.
At least part of the problem here is a lack of agreement on what we mean by “intelligence” (or by “intelligent”). Elizabeth has previously indicated that she believes evolution itself is an intelligent design process. But the ID proponents reject that view of “intelligence”.
Arguing over whether there’s a role for intelligence is pointless unless people can agree on what that means.
The real hubris is having a scientifically illiterate layman claim everything scientists have discovered in the last 150 years about life on the planet is all wrong.
Those things were all there in nature long before humans came around.
More empty assertions. Do you have anything besides your personal incredulity to offer?
Because we have overwhelming positive evidence for the natural evolution of life on the planet over the last 3.5 billion years and zero positive evidence for any external Intelligent Designer.
It’s basically childish. Behe and Dembski are wrong, but not childish. Behe’s claims, in particular, are well reasoned and amenable to research.
If Steve and William are honorable (and I’m sure they are all honorable men) they will pick up a few books and learn something.
NR said:
That’s only a problem if one wants it to be a problem. There is a lack of agreement on many things in science, including evolution; such disagreements can foster better definitions and analysis. The bigger problem is the knee-jerk obstructionism of materialist Darwinists that do not wish to allow any concept of teleological intelligence into evolutionary explanations because of their a priori ideological commitments.
Really? Which ones? Where?
No, it isn’t. Such disagreements can be part of the ongoing process unless some groups simply wishes to stonewall the discussion altogether.
Is there such a thing as a fair die William?
Petrushka said:
I have no idea where you get this. Evidence for the paranormal and recordings on various media forms has risen with the advance of technology, not decreased. Perhaps you are confusing self-inflicted ignorance on the subject for fact.
Actually the problem is that no such concept has been presented.
I can demonstrate this quite simply as follows:
William, pick an evolutionary explanation and show how adding the concept of teleological intelligence improves that explanation.
As you will not do so, by inference I conclude there is no such improvement available. If there were you would surely add it here, now.
For instance?
Let’s see it.
I’m sure he’ll be right on that, straight after he decides if dice can ever be fair.
EVT recordings, ITC recordings (including TV images), the sophisticated equipment used to monitor and record materialization events (Scole Experiment), use of computer and the internet to conduct psi experiments; ability to record and playback recordings beyond the normal audio and visual range. Images imprinted directly on digital camera memory and on film locked in a sealed, light-proof box … etc.
I don’t know how reliable anything on YouTube is given that you can fake just about anything, but Petrushka’s complaint seems to be “why don’t we see youtube jam packed with stuff about the paranormal”? I would suppose that would mean from every-day people who now have access to recording device technology. But, YouTube is jampacked with such uploads.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=best+recorded+evidence+for+the+paranormal&qpvt=best+recorded+evidence+for+the+paranormal&FORM=VDRE#a
Once again, I’m not claiming this is significant evidence for the paranormal, but Petrushka seems to be of the mistaken opinion that people are not jamming Youtube with increased videos of supposedly paranormal recordings.
Yes, this again.
You are not arguing that PSI is real, you are just arguing that people are doing research into it.
You are not arguing that the videos on YouTube are real examples of the paranormal, just that people are putting them up and claiming they are.
So, to be clear, pick a video that you believe is not fake and we can discuss it further. If you don’t think any video is real, what’s your point? Nobody is disputing that more such videos are going on YouTube are they?
And, William, is there such a thing as a fair die?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/27/ghosts.go.irpt/
William, you can surely find something better than this.
Yes, I actually meant specific examples not just generic examples.
And for each example you *do* give, again, please be clear if you yourself believe it is real or if you are just putting it out there as an example in general. If you don’t believe they are real, no need to give an example – we are in agreement at that point.
And William, any such thing as a fair die?
There’s a guy on youtube that uses a Kinect camera and motion-mapping software to investigate claims of ghosts as part of his ongoing youtube series. He could be totally pranking us, but as I am pointing out, petrushka’s view is simply not valid. People are apparently using all kinds of modern technology that is increasing the number of paranormal claims and potential evidence – not the opposite.
That might be true, but as yet nothing has stood up to scrutiny. Unless you know better?
If your position (if you actually have one) was true, in that PSI is real, would all this extra scrutiny not be producing results by now?
If more people are investigating yet the number of claims that actually stand up to scrutiny are falling, then the thing under investigation becomes less likely to be real, not more.
That guy is just wrong. He’s using sophisticated software that is designed to seek out human profiles and abusing it.
http://www.polygon.com/halloween/2014/10/30/7079943/kinect-ghost-hunting
petrushka,
I’m pointing out that your assessment of a decline in claims of the paranormal due to increased availability of advance recording technology is just flat wrong, petrushka. Anyone with an open mind, with just a little objective examination of the sources of media available, will see this. You can’t throw a stick these days without hitting someone who has recorded on some device something that appears to be paranormal. It’s literally all over the place.
OMagain,
Whether he’s mistaken or fraudulent or not is entirely beside the point. Try to stay on track.
And Tomkins told you this, right?
I liked how rational Tomkins comes across on reddit:
LOL! Comes across like a whiny child with his hackneyed worn out YEC retorts…
Why do you think Tomkins – a geneticist – does not know what “maximum likelihood” means? And why do you suppose he used the “ungapped” criterion in his BLASTn searches?
And why does he never TEST his YEC beliefs using these sorts of analyses?
Um, sorry – Tomkins EMPLOYS biases to get results he wants.
Ask him to run the same sort of analyses on taxa that he believes to be of the same Kind.
I’m betting that he won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.
They never do.
I did a google search and didn’t come up with anything. How about some links?
ETA:
Something that could be presented as evidence in court. Kind of like crime videos, or the Russian dashcam videos.
Remember the ones of the meteorite? Something like that.
It’s actually entirely the point. That you don’t care about truth or reality is what’s irrelevant.
Oh? What is the track?
The track is James Randi. And the point is despite all the evidence increasing no claims of the paranormal have been confirmed outside of youtube.
So your argument, such as it is, undermines your point. There are more claims, and therefore more evidence. Yet all that evidence is low quality. Therefore there is unlikely to be a real effect
Is there such a thing as a fair die William?
Did you not see the huge link I posted above?
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=best+recorded+evidence+for+the+paranormal&qpvt=best+recorded+evidence+for+the+paranormal&FORM=VDRE#a
William, let me be clear. to qualify for the Randi prize, you have to be able to do something in the presence of an audience. Something that is not stage magic.
But to get the attention of the world, you could start with an iPhone video and work your way up.