Peer Review

charles darwinDarwinism, 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, flies 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

 
 

About The Author

Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.