12/17/02, After the Ohio School Board: Impact's Article will be published Jan 2003.
I'm from Impact Weekly. I'm writing a story on yesterday's decision by the Ohio Board of Education to install in the K-12 curriculum the teaching that there is a significant scientific community that is critical of evolutionary theory. In addition, intelligent design theory was denied a place in the new plan. If you could answer any of the following questions concerning this topic, that would be great. I would truly appreciate receiving your response in the next few days. I would like this article to be representative of the local academic, religious, secular, and nonacademic communities, and the achievement of this relies on comments from pertinent creationist/intelligent design specialists such as yourself. If you can think of anyone else who is an good proponent of intelligent design, please let me know. Thank you very much for your time.
Impact Weekly Question Ron's Answer
How do you feel about evolution being taught in the public school system? Do you find it imperative, irritating, useful, or out-of-place? Evolution (macro) is the intellectual justification for atheism. It is based on the unproveable universal negative that there is no God and therefore is illogical by the rules of logic! It is deceitfully taught in that it does not admit its faults nor reject its stated hypothesis when found wrong.. It assumes it is right and declares all information contrary to its model as false by definition.
What are the benefits and/or drawbacks of teaching evolution? If micro evolution is taught, it is the established model of traditional science (now called creation and disallowed by definition). Essentially, macro evolution (soup to nuts) states that a series of micro changes (the creation model of created kinds) can create new forms of macro life (one kind produces another kind by unknown method). Then evolution states that the proven, observed micro model of creation is false because macro is true. This is not science! Evolution (macro) has no real science backing it and needs to be taught correctly to solve this dilemma of truth.
How do you feel about the theory of intelligent design being taught in public school classrooms? Intelligence is an observed data point. Information theory is a well established science. Ignorance and chance processes, the heroes of evolution, produce nothing but mush, if that. I far prefer the use of intelligence, the teaching of intelligence, and the study of it. Our schools are not getting better teaching the bogus science of evolution.
Do you feel that the Ohio Board of Education and its Standards Committee made the right decisions in including criticism of biological evolution and refusing to include "intelligent design" in the curriculum? Yes! And No! It's a political compromise. Evolution needs all the political help it can get. The more I know about it, the less I like it. We need to teach more of evolution with its' contrast with reality. A counterfeit is easily detected only it the real thing is known and used. I welcome a fair playing field, but I don't think it will happen easily.
Have you experienced, witnessed, or heard about any struggles of local teachers attempting to teach either evolutionary or creationist thought in the classroom? Yes. Teachers and administrators that I know, tell me they are at risk if they vary from the evolution party line, so they avoid it. The testing could further hamper them, unless a real critical analysis is added to the curriculum.
Is there a fundamental difference in objectivity of the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design? Do either lean toward dogmatism? Do either have relgious or ideological backbones? There is no objectivity in evolution as taught today. They define all other models as false in their definition. If it [macro] is objective, it has to throw out the scientifically falsified information. If it does that, it has nothing left to teach. It is very dogmatic; it has to be!

Intelligent design is carefully defined to include only objective information and as such can welcome evolution as a competing model. This is traditional science and the science being practiced everyday. It works, again and again.

Would you ever consider pulling your children out of public school system because creationist or evolutionary thought was being taught? Not if a fair playing field was present. Teach them as models. Concentrate on the science, not the philosophies.
What efforts do you make to advocate your stance on the issue? What does your newsletter aim to do? Teach all the facts. Provide short answers to get people thinking. Have available resources for further research. Don't allow only one competitor on the playing field to win by default instead of fair competition.
How many write for it? Are you all of the same religious denomination, or no? Over the years a dozen writers have written for our newsletter. Probably hundreds have written for the newspaper. Not all writers are in same religious denomination.
Thanks again in advance.