An open challenge to Joe Cienkowski

I have just promised something to Joe that I want you all to witness. For background on what this means, see here and here.

If Joe can provide us with a summary of the findings in his book that he claims proves evolution by means of natural selection is a false science, which we can debate and critique according to the scientific standards of peer review, and make a cogent point that we can all agree brings something new to the table, I’ll give him a banner-ad in pride of place that links directly to the store that sells his book.

EDIT: I have also posted a request for comments on

Joe Cienkowski is a young-Earth creationist. He insists that, in his book, he has proven Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection is a false science.

Myself and many other people on twitter have, for the past week, given him a simple challenge: To make an executive summary of his findings available for peer review.

If he can debate on some cogent points, which genuinely bring a new angle to this issue, I have promised him a pride of place banner-ad on my blog, which receives hundreds of hits-per-week, direct linked to the store on his blog which sells his books.

In the interest of impartiality I would like to invite as many people as possible to observe and comment on the debate—which once he has had time to make his case and respond to rebuttal arguments from other readers—it will be put to a simple vote; ‘Has Joe Cienkowski proven Darwinian evolution by means of natural selection is a false science or not?’

EDIT 2: I’ve also posted the above on Joe’s Blog, where it is pending approval and I’ve posted it on various Christian debate forums. If we can get as many people as possible to independently critique Joe’s work no-one gets to say we skewed things against him or in favour of one side over the other.

EDIT 3: Last night, via twitter, I promised Joe that if he provided an appraisal of the evidence he claims to have gathered for his book, that proves evolution is a false science, I would make a YouTube clip of myself holding his book aloft, instructing the world to go and buy it. I also promised I would help him contact Glenn Beck to promote his book. I also promised him I would fall to my knees and accept Jesus Christ as my personal saviour if he presented the evidence he claimed to be in possession of almost 6 days ago now, which shows that “evolution is the religion of atheism”. In a series of exchanges, Joe refused. All he has to do, to save my soul from eternal torture in the fires of hell, is cut and paste the section of his book which answers his critics once and for all. I hope when I write ‘EDIT 4’ below, he will have finally decided to do this.


16 comments on “An open challenge to Joe Cienkowski

  1. So far I’ve had this reply from Joe:

    @MovingToMontana there is a much more powerful argument to prove that evolution is false, tho. So, buy the book, and we’ll have alo

    …and as if to indicate which way he now intends to go, perhaps to avoid the question altogether, he also said this…

    @scott_hurst I have absolute 100% conclusive proof that humans cannot be more than five or 6000 years old. Earth age must coincide

  2. I’m glad you proposed this to him but I know he won’t take up the offer. I offered to buy his book if he could give me just two of his supposedly twenty reason why atheism is a religion but he did not reply.

    Funny, he so desperately plugs his book at every chance he gets and seems very motivated by greed and book sales, yet he ignored a genuine chance at selling one copy!

  3. Emily, I would happily work on his behalf, FOR FREE, selling his books harder than he does, if he would only provide an overview of the evidence he claims to have and present his arguments in a proper peer review format.

    All he has to do, is point to ONE gene in the entire, publicly available, free to access human gnome project which could not have evolved by means of natural selection and the nobel prize is his for the taking. It’s such a shame he’s prepared to squander that international fame and fortune because he’s so precious about publishing his raw data.

  4. Jim, he’s a fundy – period. His whole argument is going to be based on the Old Testament, I’ve seen it too many times not to recognize it. He knows absolutely nothing of science or any empirical method let alone methodological naturalism or anything the typical 8th grader could not refute. He believes in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. That is his proof, “god said it, I believe it, that ends it” and that alone is the claim of his book. If I were forced to be generous, I would say he is a budding Ken Ham, or that jail bird Kent Hovind at best. The best approach, I feel, is to show the fallacies and factual errors of his holy book, but I would be surprised if one could get through his inculcation, indoctrination and subsequent delusion. Although, I personally do it for the casual observer who could be influenced by my argument – or their lack of one. Good Luck and keep up the good fight.

  5. I’m fully aware of what he is, Beechbum. The whole point of this was to make him twitter famous, so other people could see what he is too. No facts, no arguments, no balls.

  6. Pingback: All about Joe Cienkowski « How good is that?

  7. I’ve repeatedly asked him to prove just his belief in the Bible he claims is 100% true. According to Mark 16:17-18 Christ says anyone that believes in him can drink any deadly thing and not be harmed. I’ve asked Joe repeatedly to drink the poison and prove your bible is true. His only response is that verse was just for the believers BEFORE the bible was written, since they needed proof. Huh? There was a time limit on Jesus’s words? Go figure.

  8. I love it when they come up with super unconvincing ways to ignore vast passages of the same book they insist is the unalterable infallible perfect word of God. The really sad thing is there’s only the likes of Joe who actually think that’s how the bible is supposed to be read. The people who understand its allegorical worth are just as appalled by literalism as those of us with no religion in the first place. I can’t help thinking we should be doing a much better job of helping each other weed out these charlatans together, instead of assuming if we ignore them they’ll go away.

  9. All Joe wants is to promote his book. He’s not looking for debate or discussion. He’s using his confrontational tweets to push his book. The best is to just ignore him at this point.

  10. @Jim – Let me change my statement that it’s best to block him, and report him for spam on Twitter. The more of us do this, the more likely he is to get banned from Twitter.

    If you’re going by him being an extremist, there are a lot more extreme people on twitter with far more followers than stupid Joe, some doing far more harm than Joe trying to push his book.

  11. All in good time, Travis, all in good time. Once Joe has been given the chance to respond to the video review series (as it is only fair he be allowed to) we’re organising a mass ‘un-follow Joe’ day to remind him that 90% of his existing twitter followers are non-lunatics who are only there to see how mad someone can be without forgetting to breath.

  12. You guys all use the same tactics, if someone doesn’t agree with you, then you go after them and call them a lunatic or a maniac and then you do whatever you can (like un-follow or report them as spam).

    I am a scientist… a marine biologist, and I believe in God. I also believe that natural selection occurs daily; however, that doesn’t mean we evolved from pond scum.

  13. Professordendy: Please explain to Joe why no-one in your profession tries to say we did evolve from pond scum. Please explain to Joe why Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a fact. Please explain to Joe why there is nothing inconsistent with believing in Yahweh and accepting the evidence for evolution. Please, in short, try to explain anything to Joe without losing your temper now and then too.

  14. professordendy,
    Please explain to Joe how the Earth is older than 6k years old,
    that measurements of radioactive halflives are not a *guess*,
    that there has been no global flood, at least not recently,
    that Genesis could not possibly be, in any measure, literally true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s