[ovrtaxt]

No, it's evidence that if you go around insulting creationists, you are slinging crap at some pretty impressive scientists.

[AntiGuv]

No, it's evidence that if you go around insulting creationists, you are slinging crap at some pretty impressive scientists.

Well, one thing I would point out is that for many of these scientists there is little evidence that they were "creationists" as the term is commonly applied today. In modern parlance, "creationism" means literalism - someone who believes the Bible is literally true verbatim, with a typical fetish for Genesis in particular. The fact that some historical scientist mentioned the Creator in some context (which is usually all it amounts to with these citations) hardly means that they believed the Bible to be literal history, or that they would have persisted in that belief following familiarization with natural selection theory.

[John H K]

Gosh, the idea that some mathematician who lived 200 years before the idea of evolution was even partially developed, and probably devoted about 2 minutes of his life to thinking about biology, wasn't an evolutionist just SHATTERS my confidence in evolution. (snicker.)

99% of all geologists prior to about 1960 or so didn't believe in plate tectonics, including some extremely bright people who made many important discoveries.

That's not an argument against plate tectonics.

And of course, at root, given the usual creationidiot standards of research, it would be unwise to blindly accept claim that everyone on the provided list was an ardent creationist without fully reading all of their papers and life's work. I'm guessing a lot of these guys simply never mentioned evolution (not surprising for the majority who lived before the "Origin of Species" was published, or for whom biology/naturalism wasn't their field of study) and therefore get tossed into the "creationist" bucket.