Testimony on the proposed new Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) Science Standards - November 11, 2002
by Patrick Young, Ph.D.
On November 12 11, 2002, Dr. Young gave the following oral testimony to the Ohio State Board of Education concerning the proposed new Science Standards.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the board, my name is Patrick Young. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have been employed as a chemist and materials scientist in industry for over 18 years. I have several publications in peer reviewed journals and am the holder of four United States patents. So I know how to develop credible theories and I fully understand the scientific method.
I applaud the intent of this board to allow educators to teach the controversy when discussing evolution in science class. I am also encouraged by your proposal to include all logical explanations of phenomena in nature and not limit students to only search for materialistic explanations.
However, I am here to tell you that the language is too vague and does not go far enough. There needs to be specific statements that the "evidence for and against evolution will be taught." Moreover, language needs to be written that gives teachers protection to discuss alternatives to evolution such as intelligent design.
When evolution is mentioned in these standards, it continues to be proposed as a fact and not controversial. Not only is this false it is scientifically irresponsible. Evolutionists have presented their case by relying on the old tactic of "appealing to authority" because their evidence will not stand up to scrutiny. Their strategy is to avoid admitting that historical sciences such as paleontology, geology and human origins are not held to the same standards of inquiry as atomic theory and Newton’s law of gravity. Furthermore, if historical sciences were actually held to the same regulations of evidence as other scientific disciplines, they would fall like a house of cards.
Appeals to authority should never be a foundational component of teaching or promoted in our educational system because it is a poor method to encourage critical thinking skills. Besides, the scientific establishment has been mistaken in the past and will be mistaken in the future.
The assumption that the complexity of life itself primarily owes its wide diversity to evolution, mutations and / or natural selection has been, and continues to be fundamentally supported by the fantasies and illusions of overactive imaginations. Mental apparitions may have logical explanations, however logical explanations per se have no scientific foundation if they cannot be experimentally validated.
Macroevolution cannot be experimentally validated. The "big bang" cannot be experimentally validated. The earth forming from a nebular cloud 4.6 billion years ago cannot be experimentally validated. Natural selection as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of all past life forms cannot be experimentally validated. Unity of all organisms cannot experimentally validated.
None of these proposed standards can stand up to true scientific scrutiny. I challenge the members of this board to continue towards the path of pure scientific inquiry and place these standards I have mentioned in the region of unproven hypotheses where they belong. Thank your for your time."
E-mail Dr. Young with your comments or questions
Top | Home