Second comments on the proposed new Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) Science Standards - May, 2002
by
Patrick Young, Ph.D.

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

Dr. Patrick Young's Home page

 

  TO: The Ohio State School Board

I am writing to express my deep concern and sadness that after all the public input, the Science standards writing committee has chosen to continue the censorship of scientific arguments and evidence against evolution. It is my firm belief, this committee never had any real intention of listening to the public or to any scientific view contrary to their doctrine. It is also not surprising the committee has chosen this route considering the bias of the people who makeup this group. I still hold some slim hope the State School Board desires accuracy in the science education of Ohio students. If these standards are allowed to stand as written, the children in Ohio, will effectively be learning nonsense.

It is sad the majority of this state school board have chosen to embrace the false idea of molecules-to-man evolution and conclude that intelligent design has some sort of hidden religious doctrine. The scientific foundations of intelligent design are solid; however, this result is understandable considering the misguided views of numerous religious people and the militant atheism practiced by a majority of the evolutionist community. 

Creationists favor allowing evolution to remain in the testing standards if science teachers have the academic freedom to teach all of the arguments and evidence against it. Evolutionists have proven they will covertly search out and attempt to fire any instructor who teaches evidence against their theory. Any pathetic argument can be won if the contrary evidence is censored. Censoring the contrary evidence to evolution effectively results in an unfalsifiable theory. 

Below is a listing of the most blatant evolutionary dogmas being promoted by your writing team as standards for Ohio students. I initially sent several of these to the science standards committee, which were promptly ignored in the second draft. If these people are serious about only teaching standards that are falsifiable and experimentally reproducible, then hold them accountable to their own rhetoric.

 

Standard Life Sciences Grade 8

1. Know evidence that supports the idea that there is unity among organisms despite the fact that some species look very different (e.g. similarity of internal structure such as cells and chemical processes, evidence of common ancestry).

My Response (Patrick H. Young)

Evidence does not support the idea of unity. Evidence does support the idea of similarity. Similarities in cells or chemical processes are not evidence of unity. This argument is circular and unscientific.

I challenge you to show me any definitive scientifically validated proof of common ancestry! This would require the existence of numerous transitional forms in the fossil record. 

The evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been the persistent and nagging problem of gradualistic accounts of evolution."

The evolutionist Colin Patterson stated in response to a letter written concerning his book, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them.....I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which I can make a watertight argument"

 

Standard Life Sciences Grade 8

9. Understand that diversity of species is developed through gradual processes over many generations.

My Response (Patrick H. Young)

If this is true then why did the evolutionist, Robert Carroll state in his book, "Perhaps we should not be surprised that vertebrate paleontologists did not support the prevailing view of slow, progressive evolution but tended to elaborate theories involving saltation, orthogenesis, or other vitalistic hypotheses. Most of the evidence provided by the fossil record does NOT (my emphasis) support a strictly gradualistic interpretation, as pointed out by Eldridge and Gould (1972) and Eldridge (1977), Gould (1985), and Stanley (1979, 1982)." (1)

The issue of gradualism is controversial in evolutionist circles because the fossil record does not support it. There have been several alternative theories including the famous "punctuated equilibrium" proposal by Gould. This proposal was made directly because of the total lack of evidence supporting gradualism.

Punctuated equilibrium has thrived for the same reason intelligent design does. There is not enough transitional fossil evidence to support gradualism in the fossil record and there is no evidence gradualism can create the complexity known in today's life forms. 

1. Carroll, R., "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution", W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p 4.

 

Grade 8 Standard Earth and Space Sciences

8. Describe how stars formed early in the development of the universe when matter, clumped together by gravitational attraction, formed countless stars early in the development of the universe.

My Response (Patrick H. Young)

There is no credible theory to support this. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started, and almost all of them require having stars to begin with. This is the old chicken and egg problem; it can't account for the origin of stars in the first place. 

Astrophysicist's have stated, "There is a general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the generally accepted theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics "(1). Isn't observation, collection of data and confirmation of results what the evolutionists are screaming about? Why are they allowed to promote theories as fact with no data to support the conclusion?

1. Alfven, Hannes, Gustaf, Arrhenius, "Evolution of the Solar System, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1976, 
p.480.


Grade 9 Standard Earth and Space sciences

2. Know that current scientific evidence supports the theory of the explosive expansion of the universe, the Big Bang, over 10 billion years ago.



My Response (Patrick H. Young)

Current scientific evidence supports the universe is expanding. Not an explosive expansion. To say the evidence supports a Big Bang is highly speculative. The Big Bang is only an idea to explain the observation that the universe is expanding but evidence in itself does not confirm a Big Bang happened.

The so-called "cosmic background radiation" (CBE) touted as evidence for the Big Bang is not necessarily true. The CBE supposedly observed was below the signal to noise ratio of the equipment and it is arguable if anything was there. If it was there it can be explained as gravity waves predicted by general relativity or an aberration due to passing through intergalactic gases.

The Big Bang assumes an original high concentration of energy. There is no credible explanation for its origin.

Suddenly this concentration of energy decided to explode with no scientific explanation as to why

There are certainly other problems but primarily it is not scientifically prudent to say that evidence supports a Big Bang.

To suggest we know how old the universe is via Hubble measurements is false. Light years is a unit of distance not time. These statements about billion-year age are loaded with unverifiable assumptions.

There is no agreement on the expansion rate of the universe. It has been proposed to be anywhere from 80 km s-1 Mpc-1 to 50 km s-1 Mpc-1 . This means the universe could be anywhere from 8 to 20 billion imagined years old assuming we know how much dark matter is out there (which we don't) and there are no issues of general and special relativity ( which we don't know).

 

Grade 10 Life Sciences Standards

1. Know that living cells .... come from pre-existing cells........

My Response (Patrick H. Young)

Any theory that attempts to elucidate the diversity of life via the simplicity to complexity route should be able to explain its origin. Since it appears you are rejecting the scientific merits of irreducible complexity resulting in an intelligent designer, just what are you proposing?

These science standards are packed with perceived conclusions about common ancestry, simplicity to complexity etc... but then you say that life can only come from life! If intelligent design is rejected as non-science, then evolutionists must be able to explain the origin of life as random chance from lifeless material.

The "so called" science authorities who claim that evolution "does not care about origins of life" are talking nonsense. Evolutionary biology books are loaded with lame attempts to explain this from either a pre-biotic soup or hydrothermal vents etc. If they do not care, they why are these unscientific myths perpetrated in their books. 

Attempts have been made in the past to create a pre-biotic soup, such as the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. This experiment, like all others, fails because it is unable to explain the origin of homochirality. Chirality is the basis for life and there is no mechanism known today to explain a naturally occurring homochiral molecule.

Why do you think evolutionists are so obsessed with discovering life in outer space? They know the reducing environment required to form amino acids never existed on earth. Furthermore, discoveries of amino acids in meteorites (probably contamination) have only resulted in materials that are racemic or slightly chirally enhanced. If the evidence for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming then you should be able to explain the origin of the simple cell. If not, then realize why there is a great deal of scientific inquiry behind the conclusion of intelligent design. 

Grade 10 Life Science Standard

24. Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.

27. Understand that natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution: some variation in heritable characteristic exist within every species, some of these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing, and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase.


28. Analyze how natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms (eg. genetic drift, immigration, emigration, mutation), and their consequences provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms.

29. Know life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth only single celled microorganisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.



My Response (Patrick H. Young)

I realize that number 24 has become an accepted definition by the anti-creationists but it is woefully inaccurate and intentionally used to mask the fundamental flaws Darwinian evolution. This definition is more in line to describe observed instances of simple adaptation / variation within species and not evolution. Furthermore, If you are going to postulate, as in number 27 and 28, that natural selection provides a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms including simplicity to complexity, then you had better be able to justify how this happened!

The problem is, this definition does not attempt to, and biology has not been able to, adequately explain this perceived observation. The mechanisms of genetic drift, immigration, emigration and mutation provide NO scientific route for molecules-to-man evolution. The evolution from simplicity to complexity requires an addition of new genetic information that does not exist in the previous generation. All observations of these perceived evolutionary mechanisms result in a neutral or effective loss of this genetic information not a gain. Without this effectual gain in genetic information, there is no viable mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution. Knowing this, it is impossible to explain scientifically any evolution of simplicity to complexity and irresponsible to suggest we can. 
MIT-trained biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner stated, "Considering the great sweep of evolution for which neo-darwinian theory claims to account, and considering the huge number of steps that are supposed to have led to that evolution, there must have been a huge number of random mutations that added at least a little information.... Therefore, with all the mutations that have been studied on the molecular level, we should find some that adds information. The fact is that none have been found (my emphasis). People who postulate that inanimate material can produce life unaided with a necessary constant increase of information, are going to have to face up to the fact that a lot of very smart people are taking an increasingly dim view of what is being presented as 'fact' in many textbooks."

You also have no evidence that single cells without nuclei existed before and evolved into actual eukaryotic cells. All you have is the endosymbiont hypothesis with no data to prove it. Again, if evolutionists want to spout diatribes about the scientific method, then lets require them to stand by their own musings.

Standard: Earth and Space Sciences

Grade 11


1. Describe how the early earth was different from the planet we live on today and explain the formation of the sun, the earth, and the rest of the solar system from a nebular cloud of dust and gas 4.6 billion years ago.


My Response (Patrick H. Young)

There are so many fundamental problems with the nebular cloud theory, it will be difficult to explain them here. Here are a few for your committee to explain and demonstrate their experimental reproducibility before this should be presented as fact.

1. Most of the solid dust particles in the early nebula would be composed of silicate. Laboratory experiments show that when particles of silicates collide they do not tend to stick together. But the hypothesis says the solid particles were made sticky by adsorbed gases or ices. 
2. There is no theory for the formation of the earth / moon system that has succeeded in correlating all the observed facts with the requirements of the laws of physics. 
3. Although the nine planets and most of their moons orbit around their parent bodies in the counterclockwise direction, eleven of the thirty-four known moons revolve in the opposite direction. All theories designed to explain this have failed. 
4. Although six of the planets rotate on their axes in the counter-clockwise direction, the other three (Mercury, Venus, Uranus) rotate in the other direction. Further, the axis of Uranus lies almost in the plane of its orbit rather than roughly at right angles, as in the cases of the other planets.

 

Top  |  Home