Darwinism is atheistic philosophy masquerading as science. Not so with Louis Pasteur. Is it any wonder that the allegedly pro-science “Christian” Left celebrates Darwin Day? Via Louis Pasteur on life vs matter | Uncommon Descent.
Few people have saved more lives than Louis Pasteur. The vaccines he developed have protected millions. His insight that germs cause disease revolutionised healthcare. He found new ways to make our food safe to eat.
Pasteur was the chemist who fundamentally changed our understanding of biology. By looking closely at the building blocks of life, he was at the forefront of a new branch of science: microbiology.
Here, from a letter to an atheist:
Science brings men nearer to God.
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.
I encourage you to read it all!
11 thoughts on “We should celebrate Louis Pasteur, not Charles Darwin”
Why not celebrate both Pasteur AND Darwin? They didn’t work in the same branches of science, but both were vital to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
As far as religious people thinking there’s a conflict between believing in God and also evolution (as a useful theory), there isn’t one. If some in the hierarchy of the church object to Darwin, well, that’s their own fault. He wanted to be a minister first, but they wouldn’t allow it – because he had a speech impediment. He had to settle for his second interests, botany and zoology, instead.
And just what advancement did Darwin bring to our understanding of science? His concept of a tree of life and common ancestry of all living things is false. What’s more, it has not furthered our knowledge of anything useful or true in science and in many cases has actually stifled the progress of science (e.g. no one studied the function of so called “junk DNA” because they “knew” it was just useless evolutionary leftovers.
Since my own credentials are in physics, I’ll defer to the simplified explanation of a noted biologist, who gave some guest lectures at university when I was there:
Hi Invisible Mikey,
You make the statement that “As far as religious people thinking there’s a conflict between believing in God and also evolution (as a useful theory), there isn’t one.” But here are quotes from Mr. Mayr’s article which you proposed we read:
1. He has an entire section labeled “A Secular View of Life”
2. “For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
In other words, forget the scientific method, just make up stories to match what you think has happened.
3. “The truly outstanding achievement of the principle of natural selection is that it makes unnecessary the invocation of “final causes”—that is, any teleological forces leading to a particular end.”
Attacking the teleological reasoning in science is attacking the idea of a designer or creator.
4. “Remember that in 1850 virtually all leading scientists and philosophers were Christian men. The world they inhabited had been created by God, and as the natural theologians claimed, He had instituted wise laws that brought about the perfect adaptation of all organisms to one another and to their environment. ”
He mentions this because he will then say, “The basic principles proposed by Darwin would stand in total conflict with these prevailing ideas.” Even the author admits that Darwinian theories are incompatible with a Christian worldview of biology.
5. He concludes by saying, ” No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.”
But this statement is nothing more than begging the question. The fact is that many educated people question the validity of the “so-called theory of evolution”.
I hope that you will give up the naive notion that there is no conflict between believing in God and Evolution and begin to see that in their essence there is simply no compatibility.
I’m sorry, but your argument relies on a misreading of a very basic word. In your reaction, “Even the author admits that Darwinian theories are incompatible with a Christian worldview of biology.”
No, Mayr doesn’t say that at all. He says “The basic principles proposed by Darwin would stand in total conflict with these prevailing ideas.” That means ideas prevalent AT THAT TIME, not in THIS time.
There’s more than one strain of Christianity. I’ve always been both a believer and a scientist, as are most of the doctors, nurses, teachers, technicians and researchers I’ve worked with in hospitals and clinics. Most Christians, including the current pope, have no difficulty accepting both the theory of evolution AND the existence and supremacy of God. The incompatibility remains a fallacy supported by a minority of orthodox believers.
The prevailing Christian views held in Darwin’s day are still held by many today, although we are outnumbered by those who 1) reject the Bible’s teachings about the origin of man and 2) by those who try to incorporate both Darwin and the scripture. But there are too many points of conflict for them to ever be reconcilable. The more one believes Darwin’s proposals the less one can believe what God has to say much less believe in God at all. His ideas also conflict with known science, that is to say, there is nothing in science that requires Darwin’s theories to be accepted. So I may be in the minority of orthodox believers but that does not make the truth any less believable.
The atheist position can be stated as ‘ I can not prove outright that God does not exist, but there is no evidence at all to suggest he does. Everything we know so far strongly suggests he doesn’t’.
I would have to disagree with the comment that evolution is an atheists belief. You have misundetstood. The reason evolution is backed as strongly as it is, is because there is a vast amount of evidence supporting it. Evidence that can be seen and scrutinised by all. Apologists can’t make this claim.
Atheists are open to the truth, whatever the truth may be. If there was a vast amount of evidence that disproved evolution then we wouldn’t give it the time of day any more, that however is not the case.
Let us not forget that when Darwin was first piecing together his ideas for natural selection, the church had a very strong grip on scientific enquirey, suggesting anything that went against ‘the word of God ‘ was frowned upon. Slowing scientific progress as a result.
Why would one persons achievement lessen someobe else’s? They were both integral to their respective branches of study. Evolution is as much a scientific theory as gravity.
Please re-read the post. It wasn’t that Darwin’s “achievements” lessened Pasteur’s, but that the ideology of Darwin’s fan-boys lead them to miss the recognition of real contributions. And your gravity soundbite is fallacious. Darwinian evolution has been wrong countless times.
It’s not fallacious. It’s reality. It’s accepted science. Your wishful thinking won’t change that.
No, it is a monstrous joke. Go spend some time at http://www.uncommondescent.com/ and see how even the fan-boys know how flawed it is. But they rely on public “education” to stay 100 years behind the times on things like Haeckel’s embryos, “junk” DNA, etc.