|
Peer
Review
Darwinism,
peer-review, and science - A case study.
Posted by Kevin
Kamberg on September 09, 1998 at 14:38:23:
Louis Pasteur is
one of the greatest names in the history of science and medicine, chiefly
because of his establishment of the germ theory of disease and his
conclusive demolition of the then-prevalent evolutionary concept of
spontaneous generation. He was a physicist and chemist in these fields. He
was the first to explain the organic basis and control of fermentation,
and as his research led him more and more into bacteriology, he isolated a
number of disease-producing organisms and developed vaccines to combat
them - notably the dread diseases of rabies, diptheria, anthrax, and
others - as well as the processes of pasteurization and sterilization. He
undoubtedly made the greatest contribution of any one man to the saving of
human lives, and most scientists today would say that he was the greatest
biologist of all time.
Yet, in his lifetime, he was the object of
intense opposition by almost the entire biological establishment, because
of his own opposition to spontaneous generation and to Darwinism. It was
only his persistence and sound experimental and analytical procedures that
finally compelled most biological and medical scientists to give up their
ideas of the naturalistic origin of life and their treatment of disease as
based on this notion. Pasteur was a strongly religious man, and ever more
so as he grew older. When asked about his faith, Pasteur would reply:
"The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of the Breton
peasant. Could I but know all, I would have the faith of a Breton peasant
woman." - Taken from Men of Science-Men of God by Henry
Morris. ISBN 0-89051-080-6 Copyright (c) 1982, 1988.
First Response
Posted by Q on September 09, 1998 at
14:46:46:
See, good science wins out in the end.
Scientists did not give up the idea of
naturalistic origins of life, what they gave up was the idea of
spontaneous generation. You know, flys sprouting from rotted meat for no
reason, that sort of thing.
Response to Q
Posted by MEYER on September 09, 1998 at
15:10:13:
See, good science wins out in the end.
That's right.
Pasteur's peers didn't help one bit. And he is also a good case for why
Darwinism means squat to biology.
As far as spontaneous generation and abiogenesis
goes, well good science knows it can't happen. Bad and misleading science
says it's a fact, or it could happen.
Response to Meyer
Posted by Pat on September 12, 1998 at
19:42:36:
MEYER:
See, good science wins out in the end.
That's right. Pasteur's peers didn't
help one bit. It is a case in point of how biased opinions like Joe's
and yours lose everytime. And he is also a good case for why Darwinism
means squat to biology.
Pat:
Couldn't be. Biologists overwhelmingly
accept the fact of evolution. It's like saying math means squat to
engineering.
MEYER:
As far as spontanious generation and
abiogenesis goes, well good science knows it can't happen. Bad and
misleading science says it's a fact, or it could happen.
Pat:
Two different ideas. The point is that
there is evidence for abiogenesis. Not enough yet (IMO) to say for sure,
but it looks
promising.
Response to Q
Posted by Kevin Kamberg on September 09,
1998 at 15:11:24:
Q: See, good science wins out in the end.
Yes it did, despite the intense
opposition of the Darwinists! :-)
Second Response
Posted by Lucas on September 09, 1998
at 17:09:07:
Assuming the story is entirely as you
say it is without embellishment, what has the story of a
nineteenth-century biologist to do with twentieth-century scientific
peer review? Response to Lucas
Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 09,
1998 at 19:42:31:
PK: How was Pasteur's work received by
his peers?
PK: The application of his work spoke
volumes more then the assent of his peers, and more favorably!
Response to Mockingbird1
Precisely!!! You get an A+ for paying
attention. ;-) (nt) Kevin Kamberg 21:54:58 9/09/98 (0)
Third Response
Posted by Jim F on September 09, 1998
at 17:19:07:
>> Yet,
in his lifetime, he was the object of intense opposition by almost the
entire biological establishment, because of his own opposition to
spontaneous generation and to Darwinism.
Contrary to
what one would gather from Henry Morris, Pasteur's views on evolution
seem to be unknown. He *was* strongly opposed to spontaneous generation,
but seems never to have expressed an opinion on evolution.
Someone on talk.origins once posted the
following from the Dictionary of Scientific Biography:
`Pasteur, Oeuvres, V, 101; II, 411.
Pasteur only once used Darwin's name in print -- while pointing out that
the belief in microbial transformism was losing ground by 1876, "in
spite of the growing favor of Darwin's system." Ibid., V,
79.'" (page 409)
Fourth Response
Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 09,
1998 at 21:59:48:
PK: I've noted a bit of incredulity on
your summary of Dr. Pasteur, on the part of the evolutionists. I'm
assuming that we are all familiar w/ Dr. Pasteur's contributions to
biology and some may question that he is simply being claimed by Morris,
much as Lysenko is disowned by evolutionists.
A brief but unbiased summary http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/95dec/pasteur.html
Return to the Creation
Evolution Debate Page
last updated 10/31/08 |