Oral Testimony on the proposed new Ohio Department
of Education (ODE) Science Standards - December 10, 2002
by
Patrick Young, Ph.D.

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

Dr. Patrick Young's Home page

On December 10, 2002, Dr. Young gave the following oral testimony to the Ohio State Board of Education concerning the proposed new Science Standards:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board, my name is Patrick Young. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and have been employed as a Chemist and Materials scientist in industry for over 18 years. I have several publications in peer reviewed journals and am the holder of four United States patents.

Websterís dictionary defines a Theory as "A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree." Unquote. Notice this definition does not remotely suggest a theory should be considered as fact. Furthermore, there is an operative action stating that some process will happen resulting in the requirement that a phenomenon will be observed.

Letís take some examples.

The Earthís magnetic field. Can I measure it? Yes. Do I know it exists? Yes. Can the phenomenon be observed? Yes. Do I know how it works? Not really but there are theories. This is the controversy.

Gravitational Pull. Can I measure it? Yes. Do I know it exists? Yes. Can the phenomenon be observed? Yes. Do I know how it works? Not really but there are theories. This is the controversy.

Electromagnetic radiation. Can I measure it? Yes. Do I know it exists? Yes. Can the phenomenon be observed? Yes. Do I know how it works? Probably, but there are different theories. There is some controversy.

Now lets talk about macroevolution. Can I measure it? No. Do I know it exists? No. Can the phenomenon be observed? No. Do I know how it works? No, but there are many theories.

This is why evolution needs special wording to separate it from other scientific theories. Not only is the mechanism in debate but there is also no phenomenon to observe that would demonstrate macroevolution is happening or ever happened at all. No one has ever observed a new organ, or new information added to the gene code resulting in higher levels of complexity via any perceived evolutionary process. No one has ever seen the perceived common ancestor that humans and chimpanzees supposedly split from 5 million years ago. No one has ever seen or demonstrated any viable mechanism for life evolving from non-life.

The evolutionist D.M.S. Watson was quoted in the Journal of Nature as saying "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation is clearly incredible." Unquote. Is it any surprise that some members of this board are personally attacked in the newspapers for no other reason than they question the validity of macroevolution? You would think evolutionists would spend more time demonstrating all this overwhelming evidence they say proves their theory. Instead they resort to name calling because the evidence is just not there.

I challenge this board today to do the right thing for science, education, and our children. Evolution needs to be treated differently from an educational perspective because it is also treated differently from a scientific perspective. Thank you for your time.

Top  |  Home