Intelligent Design IS Science
by: Patrick Young, Ph.D.
Dr. Patrick Young's Home page
Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch
Submitted January 6, 2002
To the Editor:
Steve Edinger is mistaken when he claims intelligent design is not science (letter, Jan. 2). His letter further incorrectly states, " If the data support the hypothesis, then you have a science."
Science is not, generating data that supports a hypothesis. Science is simply, knowledge derived systematically from observation whether it supports a hypothesis or not. If we say data not supporting a hypothesis is not science then half of the school children doing science fair projects should not be presenting them.
Edinger proclaims intelligent design is not science because "the action of a supernatural creator has not been demonstrated". However, evolutionists expound that all life originated from a common ancestor. Has the fossil record ever demonstrated this common ancestor existed? No!
The new life science standards state, evolution is "a change in gene frequency in a population over time". Not only is this definition inept, it is also a covert attempt to mask the numerous flaws in a defective theory least of which is a scientific explanation for the origin of life. If an intelligent designer is not invoked, then evolution must provide a credible mechanism for life originating from nonlife. To date the evolutionary community has failed to accomplish this.
Furthermore, the pro-evolutionists have admitted their problem in the life sciences State science proposal for grade six. Standard four declares, "know that living cells can only come from other living cells". Any theory suggesting an explanation of life via simplicity to complexity, should be able to elucidate the origin of the simple cell. All they have done is concede they canít figure it out.
Now who is practicing nonscience?
Patrick Young, Ph.D.
Canal Winchester, Ohio
Contact Dr. Young with your comments or questions