Re: great creationists of the past

Michael Roberts wrote:

> Here's some feedback. This list is frequently published. This list
> stems from Henry Morris. --snip--
>
> Michael
>
>
> Bacteriology -- Louis Pasteur; I personally dont know, but if he was
> YEC he was unique among french scientists of his day
> Calculus, dynamics, … Isaac Newton; He reckoned the first three days
> were >> 24hrs Also denied the Trinity
> Celestial Mechanics -- Johannes Kepler prob YE but he died in 1540s!
> Chemistry – Robert Boyle, adopted Chaos restitution view of Gen 1 so
> allowed more time but not much. Ted will give the definitive answer
> Computer Science – Charles Babbage ; very very old earth warming to
> evolution.
> Dimensional Analysis – Lord Rayleigh; typical late 19C old earth if
> not evol
> Electrodynamics – James C. Maxwelltypical late 19C old earth if not evol
>
> Electromagnetics – Michael Faraday, probably old earth
> Thermodynamics – Lord Kelvin typical late 19C old earth if not evol
>
> Entomology – Henri Fabre dont know but hardly likely to be YEC
> Fluid Mechanics – George Stokes typical late 19C old earth if not evol
>
> Galactic Astronomy – William Herschel, def old earth and universe
> Genetics – Gregor Mendel dont know, But RCs liable to be Old Earth
> Glacial geology & ichthyology – Louis Agassiz,,very much Old Earth,
> anti-evolution
> Hydraulics – Leonardo da Vinci, always painting!
> Hydrostatics – Blaise Pascal dont know
>
> Isotopic chemistry – William Ramsay typical late 19C old earth if not
> evol
>
> Natural History – John Ray, probably >6000yrs and open to a greater age
>
> Reversible thermodynamics – James Joule typical late 19C old earth if
> not evol
>
> Stratigraphy – Nicholas Steno, probably reckoning the earth was >>6000yrs
> Systematic biology – Carolus Linnaeus, probably >>6000
>
>
> While I have passing familiarity with some of these, and know about some
> of the more prominent ones quite well, there are others I know nothing
> about. The implication, of course, that the publisher of this list
> intends is that this is a homogenously YEC body of people – which would
> have Leonardo spinning in his grave. I also like to use Lord Kelvin to
> show the more interesting depth of texture to some of these supposedly
> 'young-earth' people. He settled on the distressingly young age of … 24
> million years, before the radioactive contributions had been discovered.
> And I've discovered a wonderful work about Nicholas Steno. "The Seashell
> on the Mountaintop" by Alan Cutler, 2003. It is subtitled: A story of
> science, sainthood, and the humble genius who discovered a new history
> of the earth. Have any of you read it? It would be a great book to
> recommend to anybody who thinks only in YEC veins as well as anybody
> whose thoughts are trapped in only anti-Christian ruts.
>
>
When you say '...probably old earth' or 'liable to be old-earth' (e.g.
Faraday) -- is this just an assumption based on the times? YECs are
very sensitive to this, and rightly so. Or do you mean 'probably' as in
there is evidence among what Faraday wrote or said that makes this
assessment probable? The latter would be useful to me in class, the
former would only be a dangerous confirmation to them that there is an
evil evolutionary conspiracy always giving the benefit of the doubt to
evolution in any question of historical loyalties. ('everybody
assuming allies for their own views ' can be the default of an
historical silence)

Ted makes an excellent point -- and it had occurred to me also -- that
it is no big deal to point out who was a creationist during a time when
virtually everybody would have been. But some of those names were
contemporaries of Darwin, at least. However, if Michael's feedback to
the list above is any kind of an accurate indicator a great many of
those were apparently "Old-earth" people. And that WOULD be more
significant news against the assumed backdrop of traditional
creationism. Thanks, Michael and Ted.

I think, lost in my previous posting, was a reference to the book
'Seashell on the Mountaintop' by Cutler. I would highlight that again
here as an excellent reading directly pertinent to everything here, and
I'm still curious to hear if others have partaken.

--merv
Received on Sat Apr 15 11:22:47 2006