So there’s a challenge by Joseph Mastropaolo to win ten grand for showing evolution to be more scientifically valid than creation myths. 
..or is there?
There are various problems with wording. The above I could win, half-asleep and hung over at 4:00 in the morning whilst doing a Rubiks Cube.
The challenge attempts to assert that;
“evolution is an inverted-fantasy religion taught in the public schools in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.”.
What is an “inverted-fantasy”?
The conclusion of the issuers is that;
“evolution exists nowhere in the universe, never has, never will.”.
The stated rules of the challenge are interesting too.
Rule #3 is;
“If the evolutionist proves evolution is science and creation is religion, then the evolutionist is awarded the $20,000.”
(this includes the $10,000 put up by the challenger).
On this alone I cannot enter, for 3 reasons..
How would one “[prove] evolution is science“?
Nothing “is science”.
Things can be scientifically valid or be based on scientific evidence.
But “Science” isn’t a thing that something can be.
Equally how would one show that “creation is religion”?
A creation is something created.
Religion is “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.”
“middle english (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.” 
We could show that religions are created, but that isn’t the implication nor does the wording of the challenge warrant it.
Now if it were to ask that we show that creationism (the belief that the universe was created by an intelligence with specific qualities and the purpose of supporting life in the form of humans) is a religious belief, then the definition does that job for us. Job done.
The third reason I cannot accept is that I’m not an “evolutionist”. I don’t hold a belief in evolution. There are evidences and facts  which can lead the the conclusion of the theory of evolution.  That I tentatively accept the theory as accurately reflecting the facts and evidence given isn’t a case of belief, especially not “religious belief”, whatever that may be.
My conclusion is that the challenge is not worded by anyone with understanding of scientific and philosophical terminology, or possibly purposefully worded in such a way as to be misleading.
The possibility of the latter being true is increased in my view by the lack of provision of contingency for a situation where both parties cannot defend their position.