Replies

This is just arrogance, but it is typical of evolutionists. When it comes to "the theory" claims are made that so much advance has occurred due to evolution while creationists are just dunces who haven't contributed squat. Garbage! This view suffers from two faulty assumptions. 1) that evolutionary theory is the reason that experiments on animals have proved beneficial. An evolutionist wouldn't even consider the possibility that it could just be that experiments on animals are helpful and that evolution has nothing to do with it. 2) it suffers from the view that if a scientist comes at a project with a creationist worldview that his work is somehow inferior. Historically speaking, most of the greatest scientists of all time have approached the world with a creationist point of view. Many of their experiments were pursued because of direct observation of how God's creation works. Many adamantly opposed evolution as well.

Here are a few in the medical field who had strong creationist worldviews and some of whom without their work modern medicine would still be in the dark ages:

James Simpson (1811-1879) discovered chloroform and laid the foundation for anesthesiology. He said his motivation to perform the research leading to this discovery was a fascination in the book of Genesis with Adam's deep sleep during the time in which Eve was fashioned from his side. He said his biggest discovery was finding Jesus Christ as Savior.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the father of bacteriology. He established the germ theory of disease. His persistent objections to the theory of spontaneous generation and to Darwinism made him unpopular with the scientific establishment of his day. He was a Christian with extremely strong religious convictions.Also involved with Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

Joseph Lister (1827-1912) founded antiseptic surgical methods. Lister's contributions have probably led to more lives being saved through modern medicine than the contributions of any one else except Pasteur. Like Pasteur, Lister was also a Christian and wrote, "I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) was the father of genetics. He had strong religious convictions and chose the life of a monk. He was a creationist and rejected Darwins's ideas, even though he was familiar with them.

Dr. Verna Wright was a rhematologist who espoused creationism in his writing.

James Simpson (1811–1870) made headway in the fields of Gynecology and Anesthesiology

Yes indeed, and ALL of them were from the 1800's before evolution was really understood and accepted.

Before Darwin ALL scientists were creationists, because that's all there was.

NOT literalists, but creationists, because there was NO scientific theory for the origins of the species, as Darwin wrote.

God created the heavens and the earth, was pretty much a given, it was HOW did he create the heavens and the earth that was question, and we have been answering it ever since.

Your problem with evolution, big bang etc, is that you feel that it takes god out of the equation.

Science CANNOT use god as a causation, because the natural laws do not apply to god, therefore to use god as a causation is pretty much destroying the whole point of the exercise.

Science started because someone asked, "how did god do this" and we have been going like gangbusters ever since.

You may not like it, it may make you uncomfortable, but the only reason it does is because you are a literalist, on the fringe of the christian religion.

A very high percentage of scientists are christians, they believe in god, but they know that science cannot use god as a causation, therefore they do not.

They separate their religious faith, from their scientific evidence and theories, but I assure you, ALL scientists look in awe at the universe and want to know how it works, that is why they are scientists. Some have their faith strengthened by doing what they do, and others are weakened, but ALL are fascinated with the world around them.

God cannot be used as acausation in science, you are just going to have to learn to live with that.

Religion is for god, science is for natural phenomona and trying to explain how he did it.

And you call us arrogant.

We don't write off 90% of scientific findings because it might hurt our worldview.

No, that is the ULTIMATE in arrogance, writing off 90% of science because it disagrees with your literal interpretation of the bible.

Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) was the founder of the science of comparative anatomy and one of the chief architects of paleontology as a separate scientific discipline. He was a firm creationist, participating in some of the important creation/evolution debates of his time.

This is a misrepresentation. Georges Cuvier did not believe in the Genesis account of creation; in fact, he explicity rejected it. He believed the earth was far more ancient than Genesis allowed, and that there had been many catastrophes which had wiped out the extinct species he observed in the fossil record. This is in good accord with modern knowledge about the CT and other mass extinctions. Since he died before the Origin of Species, he could hardly reject Darwinian evolution.

He did, however, like the geological column you so vehemently reject. See footnote 241 of this reference.

Historically speaking, most of the greatest scientists of all time have approached the world with a creationist point of view.

Most of the history of science--and thus most of the basic groundbreaking work--comes before Darwin, yes. But by far most of the knowledge we have now accumulated was learned in the last century.

In 1900, we didn't have a good model for the atom. We had barely begun to notice that there are forms of radiation besides visible light. Communication by telegraph wire, which had been around for fifty years, was as modern as it got. Radio waves had been noticed, but not harnessed.

In 1900, medicine was extremely primitive. We had only barely figured out that microorganisms caused disease. Antibiotics were decades away. Surgeons worked very quickly, getting in and out before the patient could lose enough blood to die.

Astronomers weren't sure if blobs of glowing matter in the sky were groups of stars like our solar system or most likely merely glowing dust clouds. The term "nebulla" as used then included what we now call a galaxy.

In 1900, nobody flew anywhere. A rocket was a fireworks toy. The latest thing was the tin lizzy, which threatened to replace the horse if things continued.

In biology, the concept of "gene"--a unit of heritable change--had been identified by Mendel, but his work had not been widely published. Most people were unaware of it. Nobody knew what the genes were, anyway.

Darwin had been published in 1859, and his influence was now felt worldwide. Most of the paleontological record we have now--African hominids, walking whales, chinese feathered dinosaurs, legged sirenians, quite a long list, really--had not yet been unearthed, but it would all support Darwin. If he wasn't right, he was the luckiest charlatan in history.