The exact same argument can be made about those who based their knowledge of Creation upon the literal translations of Scripture as it has survived today. Were science to use as its foundation proclamation instead of the peer reviewed work of the many generations of highly intelligent men and women you wouldn't be banging out misconceptions on an affordable machine with more computing power and communications abilities that existed collectively in the world in Darwin's day.
If, in the 16th century, one had written of medical technology that permits a physician to peer into the body without cutting, or to replace a human heart with another John Calvin would himself had lit the pyre. If one had written about magic boxes that would cook a meal in seconds or machines that could fly faster than sound, or in mysterious machines that could instantly talk to each other and share live pictures and sounds between any two places on the planet their fate would have been sealed by those who could find no basis for such technology in Scripture.
To be wrong in science is as advancing to the overall progress of man is nearly as significant as to be right because it adds to the overall knowledge base. To propose ideas not yet provable, for future generations of of scientists to validate or refute, is the work of a real scientist.
I can only speak for myself but I think you're making a mistake in thinking that people believe that God created everything based only on translations of scripture. That's enough provided scripture is properly understood and translated. But the main thing is the evidence of the creation itself.
If, in the 16th century, one had written of medical technology that permits a physician to peer into the body without cutting, or to replace a human heart with another John Calvin would himself had lit the pyre.
No doubt.
To be wrong in science is as advancing to the overall progress of man is nearly as significant as to be right because it adds to the overall knowledge base. To propose ideas not yet provable, for future generations of of scientists to validate or refute, is the work of a real scientist.
That's fine. But science based on the wrong premise is junk. It's like positing that the moon is built of green cheese and then coming up with various theories that attempt to justify this conclusion. And ignoring all evidence to the contrary. You can come up with some sound science about green cheese that is completely scientific and factual. You can come up with some statistics about the moon that are completely scientific and factual. But combining these facts and saying that they prove the moon is made of green cheese is kind of silly.