Mr. Martin's 3/7/2000 testimony to the OBE

Good Morning. I'd like to thank the board for this opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is Mr. Martin from Gahanna, Ohio. I am a 17-year computer programmer/analyst by profession, and the father of 5 children, 3 of whom are school age. I am commenting this morning on the proposed 12th grade science competencies, especially number 14. (1)

While my concerns about some of the science competencies are both religious and scientific in nature, I will limit my comments primarily to my scientific concerns.

I was part of a group that submitted suggested rewording to the board for the 12th grade science competencies. After reviewing the latest version of these competencies, which were made public only yesterday, I noticed that virtually every suggestion we made was ignored. Of particular concern was the conspicuous absence of this statement that we felt needed to be included:

19. No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory will be censored.

You have undoubtedly received a lot of written testimony from the proponents of evolutionism. You will likely hear from some of them today as well. What they will tell you is that evolution is so well proven that it deserves to be in the science competencies in a much more overt way than what the board has proposed so far. However, what they won't tell you is that there is a considerable amount of scientific evidence that has been amassed against this failed theory. By omitting language similar to what we've suggested, the board seems to have made a decision to continue the censoring of any opposing scientific evidence.

Here are just a few of the myriad of problems with evolutionism. To date, evolutionists have yet to present believable explanations for many of the basic tenants that evolutionism is built upon. For instance, no scientific experiments have ever duplicated:

the big bang
life arising on it's own from dead chemicals
macroevolution
matter creating itself from nothing

With the exception of macroevolution, all of these events were one-time events that no human witnessed. Nobody can be sure of the conditions that actually existed when they were alleged to have occurred. When evolutionists talk about the evidence of these core "beliefs" of evolutionism, you often hear words like "inference" being used.

I asked Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, author of the book titled, "Refuting Evolution", what "inference" means in scientific terms. He sent me back this reply:

It depends -- in logic, it is a conclusion that necessarily follows deductively from premises. In science, it often means a conclusion inductively drawn from data. In evolution-speak, it means a conclusion drawn from the data plus the hidden and inviolable premise of materialism/naturalism.

One way "inference" is used by evolutionists is in the discussion of microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, they are completely different. Microevolution usually results in a LOSS of information from the DNA. Macroevolution, or Megaevolution as it's sometimes called, requires a SIGNIFICANT increase in NEW information being ADDED to the DNA. They are apples and oranges. Evolutionists have yet to provide a believable explanation for how this new information is added to the DNA, or where it came from in the first place. They also ignore the incredible mathematical improbabilities against macroevolution ever occurring. Consider this quote from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo as an example:

If the OBOE insists on leaving evolution in the curriculum then will they be honest with the students and tell them the probabilities? The probability for impossible in science is 10^150. The Blue Fairy that animated Pinocchio has the probability of 10^150 to 1 against her being true. Evolution has a probability of more than 10^4,478,296 to 1 of being true. (2)

The hard evidence for evolutionism is so weak, and the scientific and mathematical evidence against it is so strong, that it is unlikely it could ever survive as a viable scientific theory if the censoring of opposing scientific evidence were ever stopped in the public schools. Evolutionists are afraid of allowing any opposing scientific views into the classroom because they are fully aware of how much ground they are loosing to those opposing views outside the classroom. Their only hope is to resort to their same old tactics of censorship in a desperate attempt to hang on to their ability to continue indoctrinating children of Ohio with their naturalism philosophical bias.

Evolutionist Eugenie Scott, had this to say in a 1996 issue of The Sciences: "Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline...you probably will get beaten." (3)

To state this in more positive terms, I think the board is missing a real opportunity here. If you will end the censoring of scientific information against evolutionism, I believe you will create an atmosphere in the classroom that will promote a real eagerness to learn, because students will feel free to explore, experiment and question things. You will have created an atmosphere that is conducive to critical thinking and analysis. I believe that such an atmosphere will have a very positive effect on the scientific literacy of our students statewide, because the learning of science will be so much more intellectually stimulating than it is today in the current environment of censorship. Thank you for considering my comments.

Footnotes:	1.	The wording for #14 was as follows: "Relate patterns of diversity, extinction, adaptation, and speciation as a result of natural selection at the molecular and population levels."
	2.	See Evolution Is Biologically Impossible for more information.
	3.	Scott, Eugenie C., "Monkey Business," The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, and received her Ph.D. in Anthropology, Missouri University, 1974. Past previous position, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984-86, page 25.
		(Note: These footnotes were not shared with the board during my testimony)