Bob Garbe's testimony to the Ohio Board
of Education on March 7, 2000
Robert Garbe, R.Ph.
Canal Winchester, Ohio
March 7, 2000
To the Ohio State Board of Education
I want to thank the Board for allowing me to speak from my own experience in life. I'm in favor of teaching the two model approach. The concern I have with science competency item #14 is I fear that when we are asked to "relate patterns of diversity" we really ought to be able to "analyze and evaluate patterns of diversity". I believe that diversity and extinction and adaptation are facts of science, but when it gets into speciation, I think that should be crossed off if only a one model approach is allowed, because there is little if any evidence to support the concept that speciation results from natural selection at a molecular or population level.
I am a graduate of the Ohio State University with a degree in pharmacy. My profession requires continuing education on top of the personal education I achieve though the voluminous reading of other scientific literature. I have practiced pharmacy for over 30 years; hold a patent on a drug delivery system for hospital patients; and, teach chemistry on a college level. I am very thankful for the education that launched me into this career provided to me by the public school system paid for by my parents taxes.
Evolution by any name has had nothing to do with the success I have achieved. No matter how hard I look at the evidence for evolution it remains to be nothing more than a philosophical idea of naturalists. It has nothing to do with my training, understanding or application of mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, and pharmacology, It does have implications in psychology, all negative in my view.
In the raising of my family, evolution has had no positive influence what so ever when science is applied in our lives. This has been my consistent lifelong experience.
I challenge each of you on the board and anyone else in the audience to explain how the theory of evolution even remotely impacts the practice of their profession as a contributing member of society. Think about carpenters, accountants, chemists, physicists, nurses, teachers, doctors, lawyers, salesmen, policemen, even geologists; do any of these trades and professions need any concept of evolution? The answer is a resounding no! Ask experts on evolution in the company of their peers, and not on their soap box or more accurately pulpit, to tell you what they know for sure about evolution and you will get silence. Evolution is held to by faith because it is the only possible theory to date that excludes a designer.
We observe an amazing design in nature. I conclude from the evidence of design that moral absolutes hold as firmly as the absolutes of the laws of gravity, motion, thermodynamics, and mathematics. I dont know anyone that forces this view on others any more then evolution is forced on us in a free debate.
Today, you will hear evidence bantered back an forth by creationists and evolutionists. It is good to consider the opposing views. But the healthy debate we hear in this room is choked off when only one side is allowed to be presented to our children in school.
On the other hand evolution has been a negative influence when it insults our beliefs with assertions that are no more scientific then our faith. Millions of people don't hold to the naturalistic belief that randomness rules our cosmos. We believe that the conspicuous order in the universe is not by accident. A close look at the evidence convinces me that those who do believe it all happened by chance are more religious then I am because I have never seen anything constructive happen without a design. When the board throws its weight behind evolution by making it the exclusive standard of achievement then it actively demeans the opponents.
In the areas of faith I do not want the State of Ohio or the public school system advocating philosophical theories hidden in science that contradict or insult the faith I impart on my children. When the Board of Education advocates for the theory of evolution by giving it the status of required learning then the board is acting to divide major portions of the community. This split is evident by the flight of children to alternative schooling. An illustration of how destructive this theory is to society can be measured by the increase in amoral attitudes of many young and old alike. The news papers are replete with reports of the consequences of an "anything goes" philosophy rooted in the hypothesis that we evolved from hydrogen.
I implore the Board of education to remove any requirement that evolution be a standard of achievement. If students in high school or college want to take a class on evolution then this would be a nice elective. Otherwise, please remove it as a standard so it doesn't continuously remain a destructive and divisive topic in the education of our children.
Please launch our children into fine careers like we have experienced and let parents set the foundation for morality unimpeded. I am confident that parents can establish good morals if not interfered with by the powerful voice of a public education that demeans their instruction through evolution falsely called science.
Mr. Moore: Do I hear your testimony that you are definitely opposed to the theory of evolution but that you would share the view of allowing both to be taught?
Mr. Garbe: That is correct. If both can be taught and there's freedom to consider all of the ramifications of either theory, then I think that's healthy. But when we squelch either one, then we are becoming dangerous.
Mr. Moore: Thank you.