First comments on the proposed new Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) Science Standards
Patrick Young, Ph.D.

Home | Audio | Buy | Contact | Downloads | FAQ | Links | | TOC | Videos

Dr. Patrick Young's Home page


  The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) has recently published a first draft of new science standards for academic content in Ohio. This draft may be found at the website

The advisory committee developing these standards is obviously pro-evolution and it is reflected by the content of their proposal. I have responded directly to many of the erroneous conclusions they are proposing about evolution. I have been graciously allowed to publish a few of my responses on this web page so all interested parties may understand the magnitude of the evolutionist agenda in the public schools.

I encourage all who take their children’s education seriously to respond directly at the website shown above. ODE needs to be deluged with responses so they will notice that a significant number of people are taking issue with this agenda.


Sincerely Yours,
Patrick H. Young, Ph.D. 



4. Know that living cells can only come from other living cells……..



Any theory that attempts to elucidate the diversity of life via the simplicity to complexity route should be able to explain its origin. Since it appears you are rejecting the scientific merits of irreducible complexity resulting in an intelligent designer, just what are you proposing?

These science standards are packed with perceived conclusions about common ancestry, simplicity to complexity etc… but then you say that life can only come from life! If an intelligent designer is rejected as nonscience, then you must be able to explain the origin of life as random chance from lifeless material.

Attempts have been made in the past, such as the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953. This experiment, like all others, fails because it is unable to explain the origin of chiral materials. If the evidence for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming then you should be able to explain the origin of the simple cell.



4. Describe how stars formed early in the development of the universe when matter, clumped together by gravitational attraction, formed countless stars early in the development of the universe.


There is no credible theory to support this. This matter would be too hot for any collapse to happen. One theory to get around this says that molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away so the matter can collapse.

If you assume the Big Bang happened. Theory says the only elements made would be hydrogen and helium. Helium does not form molecules. So the only molecule that can be formed is molecular hydrogen. Molecular hydrogen is easily destroyed by UV light and usually needs dust grains to form. The dust grains require heavier elements. Since the stars make the heavier elements then they can’t exist, so the only material that can cool is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave the matter over 100 times too hot to collapse.

Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level (1).

1. Chown, M., "Let there be Light", New Scientist 157(2120) pp 26-30, Feb. 1998.




12. Understand that diversity of species is developed through gradual processes over many generations.



If this is true than why did the evolutionist, Robert Carroll state in his book, " Perhaps we should not be surprised that vertebrate paleontologists did not support the prevailing view of slow, progressive evolution but tended to elaborate theories involving saltation, orthogenesis, or other vitalistic hypotheses. Most of the evidence provided by the fossil record does NOT (my emphasis) support a strictly gradualistic interpretation, as pointed out by Eldridge and Gould (1972), Gould and Eldridge (1977), Gould (1985), and Stanley (1979, 1982)."(1)

1. Carroll, R., "Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution", W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1988, p. 4.



1. Know evidence that supports the idea that there is unity among organisms despite the fact that some species look very different (e.g. similarity of internal structure such as cells and chemical processes, evidence of common ancestry).


Evidence does not support the idea of unity. Evidence does support the idea of similarity.

I challenge you to show me any definitive scientifically validated proof of common ancestry! This would require the existence of numerous transitional forms in the fossil record.

* The evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been the persistent and nagging problem of gradualistic accounts of evolution."

* The evolutionist Colin Patterson stated in response to a letter written concerning his book, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I certainly would have included them…..I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which I can make a watertight argument"



2. Know that current scientific evidence supports the theory of the explosive expansion of the universe, the Big Bang, over 10 billion years ago.



Current scientific evidence supports the universe is expanding. To say the evidence supports a Big Bang is false. The Big Bang is only an idea to explain the observation that the universe is expanding but evidence in itself does not confirm a Big Bang happened.

* The so-called "cosmic background radiation" (CBE) touted as evidence for the Big Bang is not necessarily true. The CBE supposedly observed was below the signal to noise ratio of the equipment and it is arguable if anything was there. If it was there it can be explained as gravity waves predicted by general relativity or an aberration due to passing through intergalactic gases.

* The Big Bang assumes an original high concentration of energy. There is no credible explanation for its origin.

* Suddenly this concentration of energy decided to explode with no scientific explanation as to why

* There is no credible explanation for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies.


There are certainly other problems but primarily it is not scientifically prudent to say that evidence supports a Big Bang.

To suggest we know how old the universe is via Hubble measurements is false. Light years is a unit of distance not time. These statements about billion-year age are loaded with unverifiable assumptions.

There is no agreement on the expansion rate of the universe. It has been proposed to be anywhere from 80 km s-1 Mpc-1 to 50 km s-1 Mpc-1. This means the universe could be anywhere from 8 to 20 billion years old assuming we know how much dark matter is out there (which we don’t) and there are no issues of general and special relativity (which we don’t know).



19. Know that biological evolution is a change in gene frequency in a population over time.

20. Analyze how natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms as depicted in the fossil record and present life forms.

21. Know life on earth is thought to have begun as simple, one celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During most of the history of the earth only single celled microorganisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.

24. Understand that natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution some variation in heritable characteristic exist within every species, some of these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing, and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to survive and reproduce. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase.


I realize that number 19 has become an accepted definition by the pro evolutionists but it is woefully inaccurate and intentionally used to mask the fundamental ongoing problems with Darwinian evolution. This definition is more in line to describe observed instances of simple adaptation and not evolution. Furthermore, If you are going to postulate, as in number 20 and 21, that natural selection provides a scientific explanation for the diversity and unity of all past life forms including simplicity to complexity, then you had better be able to scientifically justify how this happened!

The problem is, your definition does not attempt to, and biology has not been able to, adequately explain this perceived observation. The evolution from simplicity to complexity requires an addition of new genetic information that does not exist in the previous generation. All observations of adaptation and mutation result in a neutral or effective loss of this genetic information not a gain. Without this effectual gain in genetic information, there is no viable mechanism for molecules to man evolution.

Knowing this, it is impossible to explain scientifically any evolution of simplicity to complexity and irresponsible to suggest we can.

MIT-trained biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner stated, "Considering the great sweep of evolution for which neo-darwinian theory claims to account, and considering the huge number of steps that are supposed to have led to that evolution, there must have been a huge number of random mutations that added at least a little information…. Therefore, with all the mutations that have been studied on the molecular level, we should find some that add information. The fact is that NONE have been found (my emphasis). People who postulate that inanimate material can produce life unaided with a necessary constant increase of information, are going to have to face up to the fact that a lot of very smart people are taking an increasingly dim view of what is being presented as ‘fact’ in many textbooks."

Number 24 should add that all these adaptations result in a neutral or effective loss in genetic information even though the characteristic may be effectively advantageous.



1. Demonstrate understanding that the nucleus of radioactive isotopes is unstable and spontaneously decays, emitting particles and / or wavelike radiation. It cannot be predicted exactly when, if ever, an unstable nucleus will decay, but a large group of identical nuclei decay at a predictable rate. This predictability of decay rate allows radioactivity to be used for estimating the age of materials that contain radioactive substances.



To state that only because some nuclei decay at a predictable rate, you can accurately estimate the age of materials is false.

Radiometric dating requires numerous assumptions to be made including a uniformitarian past.

* It requires that we know how much radioactive material was present at the sample formation

* It requires there was no further contamination of both parent and daughter ions in question

* It requires no leaching out of parent or daughter ions over the age of the sample

* Then it requires the nuclei decay at a predictable rate.

All of these assumptions are difficult to swallow if the past is determined not to be uniformitarian (which it has).

To state these nuclei decay at a predictable rate is also false. There have been many valid experiments demonstrating the half-life of these nuclei can be altered under the correct conditions.

Top  |  Home