I've never read it but I read recently that Louis Pasteur did quite a bit of work in debunking evolution and that Einstein did not believe it either.
But the objections to evolution of those two great scientists are not taught in our public schools.
"Festival of Mirth" ping
Which is it? Did you read it or didn't you read it?
Pasteur yes, I believe he had the principle that debunked the idea of "Spontaneous Generation", it was only a few hundred years ago. Its also the only way evolutionists can explain how they believe living things were created, the idea that nonliving things can somehow produce living things.
Einstein also hoped that some of his own work would be proven wrong, notably in the area of quantum physics. He is reputed to have said that God doesn’t roll dice.
Oh dear... I see that you've made the mistake of reading creationist literature on the subject -- and believing it. Hint: Looking to creationists to "learn" about science is like looking to Michael Moore to "learn" about conservatism.
No, Pasteur did not do "quite a bit of work in debunking evolution". All he did was demonstrate that when a container is properly sealed and sterilized, modern bacteria do not re-appear spontaneously overnight. Obviously, this says little or nothing about what might be able to happen on a planet-wide scale over billions of years. However, that doesn't stop creationists from LYING ABOUT IT and declaring flat-out that Pasteur somehow "disproved" evolution. Here's just one example of that creationist lie (from freaking THOUSANDS of examples):
Reputable scientists will tell you that life cannot come from nonlife. Louis Pasteur and others have proven the fact. Yet every evolutionary theory of life origins is based on the error of spontaneous generation.For some more examples of misleading creationist reporting of Pasteur's work, and their misapplication of it to evolution or abiogenesis, and again this is just a *small* sample of the *countless* times they've pulled this crap, see Some creationist claims about Pasteur and Spontaneous Generation. For a fuller description of what Pasteur actually did (and did *not*) demonstrate with his experiment, along with more examples of creationist misuse of Pasteur (and science), see: Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life.
-- from the creationist website pathlights.com, on this page
Nor did Pasteur do any *other* work allegedly "debunking evolution". On the contrary, in all of his published works and remaining papers, the name "Darwin" appears exactly *once*, in a passage noting that belief in "microbial transformism" was losing ground by 1876, "in spite of the growing favor of Darwin's system." (Pasteur, Oeuvres, V, 79, page 409). Note that this doesn't even express an opinion on the merits of either position, just an observation on the level of acceptance).
And contrary to what Henry Morris et al would have you believe about Pasteur, no one really knows *what* his position was on Darwinian evolution, because he really didn't address it (too busy with his own work, probably). The nearest that can be found in his works which sounds like a comment on evolutionary paradigms is:
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."
-- Louis Pasteur, in Cuny, Hilaire, 1965: Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans.
As for Einstein, I'm having trouble finding *anything* he might have said which could be construed as opposing evolution. Heck, not even the *creationist* sites seem to try to quote Einstein to that use, and I'm sure if there had been even a tenuous shred of support for "Einstein did not believe [evolution] either", they'd be all over it and waving it in everyone's faces.
On the contary, the only thing I can find resembling creationist sources invoking Einstein as "support" for their side is several invocations of Einstein's famous quote (regarding *quantum physics*, not biology), "God does not play dice with the universe". For example:
The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”But this is a real stretch, since as already mentioned, Einstein was speaking specifically about quantum physics, not biology. And *furthermore*, within his lifetime Einstein came to realize that he was *wrong* when he said that... Apparently the creationists haven't caught up yet.
-- from the creationist website TrueOrigin.org
But the objections to evolution of those two great scientists are not taught in our public schools.
...because it's a creationist crock, that's why -- just like so much of the other crap creationists try to shovel in a dishonest attempt to confuse people (and schooldchildren) about the topic...
But hey, as long as you're complaining about the opinions of "those two great scientists" not being taught in "our public schools", surely you'll have no objection to the teaching of these direct quotes from Einstein, right?
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."Creationists need to be careful what they wish for...
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in M. Jammer. 1999. Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, p. 121"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists...not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in R. W. Clark. 1971. Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 502