Understand the debate is not about religion and science. There is not a Creationist I know who is advocating teaching the Bible in science class. This debate is about good science and bad science. If anyone requires evolution to be taught as an irrefutable fact without the mountains of scientific data challenging its validity, then by definition, it is unfalsifiable.

Conversely, Intelligent design is science because it is falsifiable. This theory is based on the concept of irreducible complexity and the observation of numerous processes being interdependent on each other. Some examples to support this theory are the origin of eyes, genetic information, life from non-life etc. Falsification of this rationale is very simple. Provide a valid experimentally reproducible mechanism for the origin of the examples above and the concept of irreducible complexity is falsified.

The Conference Report attached to the education reform bill passed by Congress in December challenges our schools to do exactly what Creationists are advocating. The report states "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society". 

Examples of scientific data proposed to be used in the classroom as evidence against evolution are:

1. The fact that Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980 forming strata in a matter of hours and days
2. Two years later, a mudflow formed a 1/40^th scale "Grand Canyon" in a day
3. Radioactive polonium 218 halos are found in granite rocks, which means they had to solidify instantly. 

These are scientific observations and have nothing to do with a religious belief.

Let’s finally set the record straight. Kansas NEVER BANNED THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Kansas said they would not endorse the theory of evolution as fact. They proposed to allow other theories presented along with facts in support and against the theory. They also chose not to test students at the state level on their knowledge of evolution. The Life Sciences section of the Kansas state standards says, "As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of … biological evolution" (p. 79). The Kansas inquisition began because of lies and biased reporting by irresponsible news agencies such as the Dispatch.

If after this discussion the Dispatch wants to continue to kneel at the altar of almighty evolution, then attempt to answer the following questions.

1. Give the experimentally valid mechanism for life to begin from non-life.
2. Provide one mutation ever observed that resulted in a higher level of genetic information.
3. Explain how the eye evolved.
4. Give the evolutionary process by which echolocation occurred in whales and bats.
5. Explain the origin of the simple cell.

However, if you are not able to answer these very basic questions via known mechanisms of science, then the Dispatch needs to get out of the temple of Darwin, begin reporting in an unbiased manner, and face up to the fact that there are a significant number of very intelligent, highly educated people who are rejecting evolution as an explanation for origins.

Patrick Young, Ph.D.
Canal Winchester, Ohio 

E-mail your comments or questions to Dr. Young

Copyright © 2002 Patrick Young. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items on Dr. Young’s web pages to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed (1) Patrick Young must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site URL must be noted; (3) Dr. Young’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; (7) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites; (8) Links directly made to figures, images etc that are part of an article are forbidden but links to the complete article posted on the Creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site are permitted.