Intelligent Design Debate in Ohio
Why evolution should not be taught as fact
Op-ed article that appeared in the Fort Wayne, IN Journal-Gazette
on June 19, 2002 by Patrick Young, Ph.D.


 
The controversy surrounding the new Ohio science standards appears to have resurrected an old tactic in the fine art of debate. This distasteful strategy is called the "straw man argument". The scheme is designed to distort the opponent’s view resulting in an easier assault on their adversary. Examples would be to say, "This is a debate between science and religion", "Creationists want to teach the Bible in science class", Intelligent Design is more about political science than science", or "Intelligent Design is old creationist wine in a new bottle". Those who utilize this strategy attempt to misdirect the discussion and pervert the truth to disguise critical weaknesses in their own debate position.

Radical evolutionists and biased Ohio newspapers have attempted to intimidate the uniformed by predicting that the public school’s science and technology programs will somehow become bankrupt if children are exposed to other valid theories (such as intelligent design) and evolution is not taught as fact. Statements like this are absurd.

Realistically, there are no creationists advocating teaching the Bible in science class and this is not a debate between science and religion. The theory of Intelligent Design is testable and enjoys several hundred advocates who are highly educated well-respected scientists. This theory does not thrive because of some covert religious agenda, but due to the complete failure of Darwinian evolution to provide a mechanism for the origin of the new genetic information required to create humans from chimps.

The most contentious portion of evolution (demonstrated proof that molecules became man) is a small and unimportant fragment of the total science curriculum. The critical subjects of genetic manipulation, adaptation, variation, etc. within species are considered fact by both sides of the debate. Do not allow evolutionists to fool you! The argument is about the lack of evidence to support the increase in genetic complexity required to prove molecules-to-man evolution, not whether gene mutations or adaptations result in variation and diversity within species over time.

A missing component of this debate is the original purpose for educating our children. The public school system is presumed to educate and create citizens capable of independent critical thinking. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, then allowing teachers to expose students to the ample body of contrary evidence (including alternative theories) should only serve to strengthen the argument. Educational excellence is best achieved when foundational truths are presented with corresponding dissenting opinions, and understanding the knowledge that formed the ideas.

Parents of Indiana school children should take notice when this debate arrives in your state. The militant advocates of evolutionary dogma attempt to hide their atheistic beliefs behind impressive titles like the "National Academy of Science" or the "National Center for Science Education". Their covert agenda has nothing to do with science or education. A survey of the National Academy of Science that was later published in a 1998 volume of Nature magazine confirms that 72 percent of its members are atheist and 21 percent are agnostic. It should come as no surprise that these organizations reject the evidence for intelligent design.

Patrick H. Young is a resident of Central Ohio. He has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and been employed in industry as a research chemist and materials scientist for over 17 years. He has a website at creationists.org/patrickyoung.html and his email address is patrickyoung@creationists.org.


Copyright © 2002 Patrick Young. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items on Dr. Young’s web pages to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed (1) Patrick Young must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site URL must be noted; (3) Dr. Young’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; (7) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites; (8) Links directly made to figures, images etc that are part of an article are forbidden but links to the complete article posted on the Creationists.org/patrickyoung.html Web site are permitted.

Top   |   Home