“Yes, it has already been pointed out that thousands of years of theology based inquiry produced essentially no medicine, whereas modern biology has eradicated smallpox and polio, and has made diseases like mumps a rarity.”
Here we go with whack-a-mole. Louis Pasteur, the father of modern biology, was a committed believer in ID, although he didn’t use the actual term “ID.” He refuted the evolutionists of his day who did not understand the complexity of the cell, and who believed in “spontaneous generation” of living matter.
After Pasteur refuted “spontaneous generation,” the evolutionists didn’t quit give it up entirely. They decided that if it happened only one time, billions of years ago, nobody could disprove it. Hence, the modern “hypothesis” of abiogenesis. The only problem is that, since it cannot be disproven, it is unscientific. Oops!
"“Yes, it has already been pointed out that thousands of years of theology based inquiry produced essentially no medicine, whereas modern biology has eradicated smallpox and polio, and has made diseases like mumps a rarity.”"
"Here we go with whack-a-mole. Louis Pasteur, the father of modern biology, was a committed believer in ID, although he didn’t use the actual term “ID.” He refuted the evolutionists of his day who did not understand the complexity of the cell, and who believed in “spontaneous generation” of living matter."
"After Pasteur refuted “spontaneous generation,” the evolutionists didn’t quit give it up entirely. They decided that if it happened only one time, billions of years ago, nobody could disprove it. Hence, the modern “hypothesis” of abiogenesis. The only problem is that, since it cannot be disproven, it is unscientific. Oops!
That is quite the revisionist history and a rather 'imaginative' interpretation.
You might want to read the FAQ the following excerpts have been taken from.
What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.Emphasis mine.
In his later years, Pasteur was forced to modify some of his views (not about spontaneous generation). He had thought that microorganisms retained their virulence indefinitely. But in 1881, he was forced to admit that virulence could attenuate spontaneously (and he made it the foundation of his anti-rabies vaccine). Debré says, "And now, at the age of sixty, Pasteur was once again facing facts that did not fit in which his concepts. Attenuated virulence conflicted with his biological philosophy. He had to renounce his dogmas and enter the debate on the evolution of species." He had to choose between Darwin's view that selection was in operation, or Lamarck's that the environment directly influenced the species of organism, and chose Lamarck. But he did accept transmutation of species, as is demonstrated by his comment quoted in Hilaire Cuny's biography, unfortunately not referenced, from Pasteur {Cuny 122}:
"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."Although he shortly afterwards refers to "the myriad species of Creation", it is clear that he accepted the reality of evolution. Moreover, he characterised the interaction between microbes and hosts as a "struggle for existence" (a phrase, it must be remembered, invented by the Swiss botanist Alphonse de Candolle, and borrowed by Darwin). However, I doubt he accepted that evolution occurred by natural selection, as the French rarely did until the 1950s and Jacques Monod's writings. However, he was not a creationist, at least at this point in his life.
Now, do you still want to use Pasteur as an anti-evolution authority given that he was a Lamarckist?