Ecclesiastes 11:5 vs Modern Science

[JohnHurt]

John, ever heard “you catch more flies with honey”?

You could lay off the scoreboard and your mockery if you actually want a reasonable discussion otherwise it’s just you grandstanding for attention.

Dr. Mr. Soloist;

I like Ken, and I would never attack him personally.

He is the only person on this forum that has given an argument to support evolution, which I appreciate.

But to mock the "Theory of Evolution", which was the "religion" of National Socialism and International Communism, this is a noble task.

To mock "Modern Science" that has promoted atheism, that says man has no soul, no afterlife, and no purpose in enduring this world - which is an idea which has crushed the spiritual essence out of millions of young people that "follow the science" and lose their way to fall into debauchery - to mock this horrible system hiding behind the name of "science", this is also a noble task.

The Bible provides us with better scientific principles than anything "modern science" has today.

I have never mocked anyone here, but I only describe, in an interesting way, how these atheistic belief systems are in error.

Ken is welcome to poke holes in my arguments, with humor, as I would find that interesting.

So if you don't mind, Mr. Soloist, would you please quit throwing rocks at me. This is not the first insult on my character you have heaved in my direction.

Regardless, I am talking to Ken. If Ken has a problem with my statements, he will let me know, and I will change my approach out of my respect for him. It is apparent that Ken has a LOT of knowledge on this topic.

Thanks,

John

[JohnHurt]

That is the sort of thing that actually makes science interesting. The fact that there is so much more that we DON'T know than we do know. And that is true of every single branch of science from physics to biology to medicine. Every answer to an existing question simply reveals two more new questions to answer. Otherwise, science would simply be an exercise in reading dusty old scrolls to memorize a finite and unchanging set of facts and answers.

Yes, it is interesting.

There are two more reasons why I believe that evolution cannot be true.

If evolution really did happen here on Earth, then the same conditions to create life should have happened on a planet circling one of the billions of stars in our galaxy, and other galaxies.

There is a Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, the Paul Allen Array, and other attempts to find life outside of Earth, as this would indicate that evolution was found on other planets, and so would provide "proof" that evolution created life here on earth. But we have found nothing, no intelligence other than our own. It really looks like life only exists on Earth.

This lack of evidence of life on other planets indicates that evolution is not something that can create itself. It requires a creator.

The second reason evolution is invalid is that when evolution makes the very first living cell, it also has to "make its own dirt". That is, it has to account for how matter was created "by itself".

I understand that when you press a "scientists" to discuss what actually created the "Big Bang" that created all energy and matter in the universe, they ignore you, because only something outside of Time and Space could create time and space. Only something outside of Nature could create nature. And so what created the Big Bang must be supernatural and has omnipotent power. This is a good description of "God", so science won't talk about it.

Thanks again for your comments and have a great day.

John

[Soloist]

John, ever heard “you catch more flies with honey”?

You could lay off the scoreboard and your mockery if you actually want a reasonable discussion otherwise it’s just you grandstanding for attention.

Dr. Mr. Soloist;

I like Ken, and I would never attack him personally.

So if you don't mind, Mr. Soloist, would you please quit throwing rocks at me. This is not the first insult on my character you have heaved in my direction.

Regardless, I am talking to Ken. If Ken has a problem with my statements, he will let me know, and I will change my approach out of my respect for him. It is apparent that Ken has a LOT of knowledge on this topic.

Thanks,

John

I issued no insult on your character. I threw no rock. I’m just pointing out that your language of crowing over each declarative statement of victory of your views over the theory of evolution (which I agree with you about) is wrong… this crowing does not present a character of Christ.
If you view that as a character attack and throwing rocks and an insult, that was not what was meant. What was meant was a rebuke of what I saw as uncharitable behavior.
You have taken things I’ve disagreed with you on personally.
If you’re going to post your ideas and beliefs and not tolerate pushback maybe you shouldn’t post on the forum.

[Ken]

That is the sort of thing that actually makes science interesting. The fact that there is so much more that we DON'T know than we do know. And that is true of every single branch of science from physics to biology to medicine. Every answer to an existing question simply reveals two more new questions to answer. Otherwise, science would simply be an exercise in reading dusty old scrolls to memorize a finite and unchanging set of facts and answers.

Yes, it is interesting.

There are two more reasons why I believe that evolution cannot be true.

If evolution really did happen here on Earth, then the same conditions to create life should have happened on a planet circling one of the billions of stars in our galaxy, and other galaxies.

There is a Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, the Paul Allen Array, and other attempts to find life outside of Earth, as this would indicate that evolution was found on other planets, and so would provide "proof" that evolution created life here on earth. But we have found nothing, no intelligence other than our own. It really looks like life only exists on Earth.

This lack of evidence of life on other planets indicates that evolution is not something that can create itself. It requires a creator.

The second reason evolution is invalid is that when evolution makes the very first living cell, it also has to "make its own dirt". That is, it has to account for how matter was created "by itself".

I understand that when you press a "scientists" to discuss what actually created the "Big Bang" that created all energy and matter in the universe, they ignore you, because only something outside of Time and Space could create time and space. Only something outside of Nature could create nature. And so what created the Big Bang must be supernatural and has omnipotent power. This is a good description of "God", so science won't talk about it.

Thanks again for your comments and have a great day.

John

SETI is an interesting project but probably futile.

We have only begun to start discovering exoplanets (outside our solar system) in the past 2-3 decades and the count is up to about 5,600 with about 9,000 possible sightings yet to be confirmed. This is out of an estimated 100 billion planets in our galaxy. But that is done by detecting small variations in the emitted light from distant stars when a planet crosses in front of them. Not any actual observation of the plants themselves much less their surfaces. We don't remotely have the technology to scan and observe the surface of exoplanets like we can the moon or mars.

Now let's think about the earth's own history. Or the scientifically-accepted history, I'm not talking about Genesis here. According to science, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years. The oldest cyanobacteria fossils have been found in rocks in Australia dating back 3.5 billion years ago.

Now imagine some distant civilization is pointing a radio telescope at earth searching for signs of life. For the first 3.5 billion years of their efforts they would have neither seen nor heard anything since humans didn't start using radio waves until about the 1920s. Even though there was life thriving on earth that entire time. But today with modern digital communications we are already moving away from high-power broadcasts of radio and TV signals and towards digital streaming. Few people watch TV with rabbit ear antennas these days. And even radio is somewhat fading away. In a few decades or maybe a century it is entirely conceivable that we will have completely moved on from radio broadcasts completely and into new forms of digital communication that are far more data-intensive than what can be contained in a radio wave. We use cell phones, but those are extremely low power microwave transmissions only to the nearest cell phone tower, not high power radio transmissions intended to reach long distances. So essentially some extraterrestrial SETI program pointing antennas at earth at any time over the past 3.5 billion years would have had just a very small fraction of a nanosecond of opportunity to detect high power radio transmissions. Whole civilizations could come and go thousands of times and not occur at the precise moment in time to detect life on earth via radio waves.

Then there is the whole problem of interstellar travel. Proxima Centauri is the closest star to earth and it is about 4.3 light years away. If we are using hydrogen to fuel nuclear fission (the most intense source of energy we know) the fuel required to propel a spacecraft that distance at anything approaching the speed of light would be equivalent to the the the size of our sun, which is about a million times larger than our earth. At the speed of ordinary spacecraft like the Apollo spacecraft or Voyager it would take about 75,000 years.

So in the vastness of time and space, the idea that if life has emerged on other planets that we will be able to detect it is infinitesimally small. And the chance that alien civilizations will discover us and visit is smaller still.

The point is that the fact that we have not yet discovered extraterrestrial life doesn't mean much. There could be millions of planets in our own galaxy teeming with life and the chance that we would discover any of them with existing technology is remote in the extreme. And there are and estimated 200 billion to 2 trillion additional galaxies in the universe.

Sci-Fi is fun stuff, but it isn't very scientific.

[ohio jones]

Now imagine some distant civilization is pointing a radio telescope at earth searching for signs of life. For the first 3.5 billion years of their efforts they would have neither seen nor heard anything since humans didn't start using radio waves until about the 1920s. Even though there was life thriving on earth that entire time.

And by that time, the distant civilization might well have extincted itself through the use of internal combustion engines and gas ranges.

[Ken]

Now imagine some distant civilization is pointing a radio telescope at earth searching for signs of life. For the first 3.5 billion years of their efforts they would have neither seen nor heard anything since humans didn't start using radio waves until about the 1920s. Even though there was life thriving on earth that entire time.

And by that time, the distant civilization might well have extincted itself through the use of internal combustion engines and gas ranges.

Or nuclear weapons

Christianity actually teaches that humanity will not survive on earth past Armageddon and only the details vary depending on the particular eschatology that is adhered to.

[JohnHurt]

The point is that the fact that we have not yet discovered extraterrestrial life doesn't mean much. There could be millions of planets in our own galaxy teeming with life and the chance that we would discover any of them with existing technology is remote in the extreme. And there are and estimated 200 billion to 2 trillion additional galaxies in the universe.

If the Stanley Miller experiment was a valid test on how life began, you would think that Jupiter would be covered with life. (Not that anyone can go there an find out).

Or that Mars would be covered in lichens, or at least some sort of primitive bacteria.

There are hot vents in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, miles below where sunlight can reach, and a large colony of creatures that exist without photosynthesis, but subsist on the nutrients that come from these hot vents. In the same manner, why could there not be life inside the Moon from some hot vent?

And why couldn't life happen on Venus, with the hot atmosphere and pressure?

Probably for the same reason given by Louis Pasteur. Only life can create life.

According to science, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years.

In the 1920's, "scientists" thought that the Earth was around 200 million years old.

To derive this 200 million year number, they dated the age of the fossils from the rock strata they were found in.

To date the ages of the various rock strata, they used the ages of the fossils that were found in them. (They used circular logic to determine the age of the earth. )

As more questions were asked about the Theory of Evolution, it became obvious that some of the mythical abilities of Evolution, such as the construction of the Mammalian Eye by "random chance", could not have happened in the time allotted.

So they stretched the timeline of Earth's history from 200 million years to 4,500 million years (4.5 billion) to let Evolution have enough time to "do its thing".

So, like a giant accordion, the "scientists" stretched out the ages of the fossils and the ages of the rock strata, to meet this amazing new number of years.

The best hope that "science" has to date anything is with Carbon-14, and that depends on the amount of Carbon-14 staying the same at all times in Earth history, and not that the universal amount of Carbon-14 is decaying just as fast in Nature as it is in inside some dead animal's fossil.

I understand they did a Carbon-14 test on a living clam and it came back as 10,000 years old.

So "maybe" they can date something back to 30,000 BC, but even that is speculation. But not 4.5 billion.

And no, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, the Bible does not say that at all, it is an idea that makes the Bible look unscientific. If you want the answer on that, I can tell you my best guess:

Have a great day.

John

[Ken]

The point is that the fact that we have not yet discovered extraterrestrial life doesn't mean much. There could be millions of planets in our own galaxy teeming with life and the chance that we would discover any of them with existing technology is remote in the extreme. And there are and estimated 200 billion to 2 trillion additional galaxies in the universe.

If the Stanley Miller experiment was a valid test on how life began, you would think that Jupiter would be covered with life. (Not that anyone can go there an find out).

Or that Mars would be covered in lichens, or at least some sort of primitive bacteria.

There are hot vents in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, miles below where sunlight can reach, and a large colony of creatures that exist without photosynthesis, but subsist on the nutrients that come from these hot vents. In the same manner, why could there not be life inside the Moon from some hot vent?

And why couldn't life happen on Venus, with the hot atmosphere and pressure?

Probably for the same reason given by Louis Pasteur. Only life can create life.

The Miller-Urey experiment in which they generated amino acids and other organic precursors to life was conducted within liquid water (to simulate the earth's early oceans) and all life as we know it is based on liquid water. Every living cell contains water and water is about 70% of the average content of all cells by mass. All biological processes (photosynthesis, respiration, protein synthesis, DNA replication, etc. take place in the presence of water.

Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the moon, and other celestial bodies in our solar system do not contain liquid water. And so are not fruitful places to expect to find life. At least life as we know it. Some of Jupiter's moons like Europa, are covered in ice and show signs that they may have liquid oceans under their frozen ice surface. And so those places might be the most fruitful places to search for extraterrestrial life in our solar system. But we have not, as of yet, designed a space expedition to the surface of Europa to bore through the ice and search for life. That might be technically possible but exceedingly expensive. And Europa is a LONG ways away. Much further than Mars.

According to science, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for about 3.5 billion years.

In the 1920's, "scientists" thought that the Earth was around 200 million years old.

To derive this 200 million year number, they dated the age of the fossils from the rock strata they were found in.

To date the ages of the various rock strata, they used the ages of the fossils that were found in them. (They used circular logic to determine the age of the earth. )

As more questions were asked about the Theory of Evolution, it became obvious that some of the mythical abilities of Evolution, such as the construction of the Mammalian Eye by "random chance", could not have happened in the time allotted.

So they stretched the timeline of Earth's history from 200 million years to 4,500 million years (4.5 billion) to let Evolution have enough time to "do its thing".

So, like a giant accordion, the "scientists" stretched out the ages of the fossils and the ages of the rock strata, to meet this amazing new number of years.

No, that is not a remotely accurate narrative.

What actually happened is that geologists developed radiometric dating techniques in the 1920s and began to use long-half life isotopes (potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating) to estimate the age of old rocks and rock layers directly for the first time. As well as Carbon-14 dating to estimate the age of much more recent organic remains. It wasn't until about the 1920s that our understanding of radioactive decay was robust enough to support radiometric dating and scientists could begin to date rocks directly rather than indirectly through interpolating sedimentary layers or whatnot. In the 1920s we didn't even have plate tectonics. Nor did we understand molecular genetics. In fact, we didn't even discover the neutron (which is part of radioactive decay) and fully understand the composition of atomic nuclei until the 1930s, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics have all advanced tremendously since then.

None of this had the slightest thing to do with the theory of evolution or biology. This is geology which is a separate discipline. And despite your conspiracy-theories to the contrary. There isn't some giant clandestine conspiracy to advance evolution and discredit creationism that reaches across disciplines. In fact, there isn't one within biology either.

But yes, scientific theories do change and get replaced in the presence of new information. That isn't an indictment of science. Is the very nature of science. Much of what we know today is subject to change in the future. That is why is is never accurate to say that scientists "believe" in this or that theory. Science isn't a belief system. It is an ever expanding body of knowledge that is constantly subject to change and revision in light of new information. If the theory of evolution by natural selection turns out not to be a true or accurate explanation for how life on earth changes. Then the scientists who manage to overturn it will be among the most famous names of the 21st century. Up there with Darwin, Newton, and Einstein. THAT is how science works.

[JohnHurt]

The Miller-Urey experiment in which they generated amino acids and other organic precursors to life was conducted within liquid water (to simulate the earth's early oceans) and all life as we know it is based on liquid water.

the Miller-Urey experiment could only produce amino acids, which they called "the building blocks of life". To compare amino acids to a living organism that can extract energy from its environment and replicate itself, is like comparing a bag of nuts and bolts to a fully functioning 747 airplane, gassed up and ready to taxi. (But life is even more complicated than that.)

Plus, life could be based on silicon and not carbon, but we have not seen any evidence of this alternative form of life. No, it looks like Pasteur still reigns, and only life can create life.

What actually happened is that geologists developed radiometric dating techniques in the 1920s and began to use long-half life isotopes (potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating) to estimate the age of old rocks and rock layers directly for the first time. As well as Carbon-14 dating to estimate the age of much more recent organic remains.

The fatal flaw with this type of radioactive dating is that it "assumes" that potassium/argon, uranium/lead and carbon14/carbon 12 - that these half lives do not change or decay in nature, but only in the fossils of dead animals. So they look at the amount of decay of these substances in the natural world, and compare it to the radioactive decay in a fossil, and if the fossil show more decay than in nature, they use the decay rate to determine the age of the fossil. If the fossil shows less decay than found in nature, it is discarded as an anomaly.

But their assumption is that these radioactive substances do not decay in nature, but somehow stay the same, but only start to decay once an animal dies and can no longer get exposed to these substances in Nature.

Why do these radioactive substances decay by their half lives in a fossil, but they do not decay in the rest of the world? What makes decay happen in one place, but not the other?

It would seem that the radioactive substance would not know whether it is in a fossil or not, or just located in a rock somewhere awaiting to be found.

A better explanation is that when these radioactive substances are mined and purified, that by putting the substances in close proximity to the same substance, that this is inflating the amount of radioactivity and making the whole dating process meaningless. But since radioactive dating makes the Earth really, really old, then these questions are never asked. Belief in this type of radioactive dating makes us have to follow the "scientific" agenda, that the Earth is really old, "God" doesn't exist, and man came from monkeys, you know, that kind of "science".

Science isn't a belief system. It is an ever expanding body of knowledge that is constantly subject to change and revision in light of new information. If the theory of evolution by natural selection turns out not to be a true or accurate explanation for how life on earth changes. Then the scientists who manage to overturn it will be among the most famous names of the 21st century. Up there with Darwin, Newton, and Einstein. THAT is how science works.

When the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was discredited in the 1800's, the "scientific" community pressured Darwin to say that not only could birds in the same species have different beaks, but that they could "through natural selection" evolve into entirely new species. Darwin did not originally teach this, as there is a problem with creating a species with new chromosomes and creating a male and female of the new species at the same time by evolution from an older species. Everyone should know this is impossible, including Darwin.

Other men came up with theories similar to Darwin, but only evolution inside a species. But Darwin craved notoriety, and changed his theory to say evolution could create all new species to please these "scientists", and with this change he became one of the greatest "scientists" of all time.

One of the greatest dogmas of "Modern Science" is that God does not exist, and there is no intelligent design. If you challenge this dogma, you will be banished, just like Semmelweis.

Here is what Thomas Coons said about the limitations of "Modern Science""

"Modern Science is not an open minded inquiry into the truth. Rather, it is a "Professional Group" subject to sociological forces, that demands at any given time a shared model of reality, or "paradigm".

This "paradigm" is not just an idea, but what sets the limits of what you can investigate, how you can test it, how you publish it, and the way that the professional community expects you to follow a series of dogmas within that group.

When your research does not fit into this "paradigm", you are marginalized, dismissed and ignored."

I hold that "science" has only advanced in areas that cannot challenge atheism, like computers or physics (lasers, robotics, etc), yet it has made very little progress in biology because it cannot see beyond the material world to see the Creator of all biology.

"Science" is reductionist because it simplifies the complexities of the spiritual, or the world that cannot be seen, to fit inside a much simpler "material only" world view. Science believes that all creatures, including man are "mechanical", like a robot, and do not have a soul, or connection with a higher power or consciousness.

For this reason, "science" cannot explain something as simple as how a homing pigeon can find its nest. Or how an embryo can form the correct pattern for building the bones of a child in the womb. "Science" has no real theory for the reading of the DNA strand to create a new embryo. "Science" is limited by a materialist world view.

I believe the human body is just a holding place for the development of the spiritual man, that is set free when the body is no longer necessary. "Science" believes that when a man dies, he is dead forever, with no purpose, no soul, and no reason to endure this world, other than to satisfy his own animal pleasures.

This "materialist" view of "science" is what is holding back Humanity from advancing to the next level of spirituality.

"Modern Science's" idea of advancement is to put a chip in our brains and hook us all up to a computer like in the Matrix, or make us into a cybernetic organism. They know nothing about the power of a positive attitude, or the will to succeed, or how new ideas develop in men, or the source of inspiration that guides men to achieve great things. It was the inspiration of Man that made the advancements of "science" possible, and not random chance. Yet "science" knows nothing of the origin of inspiration, or how a man can write a beautiful piece of music, while a computer cannot.

"Science" is the problem behind materialism, and having a spiritual connection to the Creator is the answer.

Have a nice day, Ken. I appreciate our talks. You know quite a lot, and I have really had to work my brain to be able to talk to you about this.

John

[Ken]

The Miller-Urey experiment in which they generated amino acids and other organic precursors to life was conducted within liquid water (to simulate the earth's early oceans) and all life as we know it is based on liquid water.

the Miller-Urey experiment could only produce amino acids, which they called "the building blocks of life". To compare amino acids to a living organism that can extract energy from its environment and replicate itself, is like comparing a bag of nuts and bolts to a fully functioning 747 airplane, gassed up and ready to taxi. (But life is even more complicated than that.)

Plus, life could be based on silicon and not carbon, but we have not seen any evidence of this alternative form of life. No, it looks like Pasteur still reigns, and only life can create life.

Well yes, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.

And yes, Miller and Urey didn't create life and never claimed to have done so.

One could theoretically think of silicon based life. But silicon is a less versatile atom because it is larger and doesn't have take gaseous forms in any of its molecules. Life on earth operates through the twin processes of PHOTOSYNTHESIS which captures sunlight to build glucose and other carbohydrates, and RESPIRATION in which cells use oxygen to break down glucose and other starches to extract the energy back out. Carbon moves back and forth between respiration and photosynthesis in the form of carbon dioxide gas. Animals (well, all eukaryotic cells) breathe out carbon dioxide gas which plants take in through their pores to use in photosynthesis to construct glucose. So not only is carbon a useful atom as the building block of complex molecules because it has four bonding points like silicon.

The problem with silicon is that silicon dioxide is a crystaline solid not a gas. Silicon dioxide is quartz or sand compared to carbon dioxide which is a gas. And silicon forms a much more rigid solid crystaline structure that would not lend itself to any life cycle. It is basically a dead end. For life to exist you not only need complex molecules, but you also need processes to cycle them through the environment. Silicon wouldn't allow that. Silicon does not even have liquid forms so unlike glucose, it can't really be transported through the vascular tissue of plants or blood stream of animals. It only takes solid forms and therefore, isn't very useful for life cycles.

What actually happened is that geologists developed radiometric dating techniques in the 1920s and began to use long-half life isotopes (potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating) to estimate the age of old rocks and rock layers directly for the first time. As well as Carbon-14 dating to estimate the age of much more recent organic remains.

The fatal flaw with this type of radioactive dating is that it "assumes" that potassium/argon, uranium/lead and carbon14/carbon 12 - that these half lives do not change or decay in nature, but only in the fossils of dead animals. So they look at the amount of decay of these substances in the natural world, and compare it to the radioactive decay in a fossil, and if the fossil show more decay than in nature, they use the decay rate to determine the age of the fossil. If the fossil shows less decay than found in nature, it is discarded as an anomaly.

But their assumption is that these radioactive substances do not decay in nature, but somehow stay the same, but only start to decay once an animal dies and can no longer get exposed to these substances in Nature.

Why do these radioactive substances decay by their half lives in a fossil, but they do not decay in the rest of the world? What makes decay happen in one place, but not the other?

It would seem that the radioactive substance would not know whether it is in a fossil or not, or just located in a rock somewhere awaiting to be found.

I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that only fossils do radioactive decay. That is simply false. All rocks that have radioactive isotopes within them experience radioactive decay. In fact all radioactive isotopes decay. That is the definition of radioactivity. And it is the identity of the radioactive isotope that determines the rate of decay, not the material that it is found within. So any rock that you find anywhere on earth can be dated with radiometric dating as long as it contains radioactive isotopes. Not just fossils. The key is that there has to be radioactive impurities incorporated in the structure of the rock when was formed. Which doesn't necessarily happen with every rock or every fossil for that matter. In fact, many fossils are not dated using radiometric dating of the fossil itself. But rather by dating the rock layers in which they are found.

Science isn't a belief system. It is an ever expanding body of knowledge that is constantly subject to change and revision in light of new information. If the theory of evolution by natural selection turns out not to be a true or accurate explanation for how life on earth changes. Then the scientists who manage to overturn it will be among the most famous names of the 21st century. Up there with Darwin, Newton, and Einstein. THAT is how science works.

When the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was discredited in the 1800's, the "scientific" community pressured Darwin to say that not only could birds in the same species have different beaks, but that they could "through natural selection" evolve into entirely new species. Darwin did not originally teach this, as there is a problem with creating a species with new chromosomes and creating a male and female of the new species at the same time by evolution from an older species. Everyone should know this is impossible, including Darwin.

Other men came up with theories similar to Darwin, but only evolution inside a species. But Darwin craved notoriety, and changed his theory to say evolution could create all new species to please these "scientists", and with this change he became one of the greatest "scientists" of all time.

You have a tendency to invent these vast scientific conspiracies where none exist. None of what you just wrote is true.

Scientists had been coming up with experiments to discredit the notion of spontaneous generation for at least a century before Darwin. The English scientist John Needham and the Italian scientist Lazzaro Spallanzani did a lot of work in this area in the 1700s, many decades before Darwin was born. So the whole notion was fairly discredited by the 19th century. It was Louis Pasteur who definitively and finally disproved spontaneous generation in 1859. But he was a French scientist and not part of Darwin's English world. The French and English were at war for much of this time.

Darwin did most of his field work on evolution in the 1830s and wrote "On The Origin of Species in the 1850s. It was published in 1859 BEFORE Pasteur did his experiments or published his results. Darwin rushed his work into publication because another English scientist Alfred Wallace, was on the verge of beating him to publication on evolution.

There is no historical connection much less a grand conspiracy theory connecting the discrediting of spontaneous generation with Darwin's work on evolution. In fact, the actual historical timeline is the opposite of what you suggest. Darwin came BEFORE Pasteur.

John. What you basically get wrong is the notion that there are grand conspiracies within science to promote this or that view that happens to conflict with religious dogma of some sort. This is not only ridiculously untrue. But it is the opposite of how science works. Real science is a competition sport and the fastest way to fame and notoriety in science is to demolish or discredit the theories and ideas of your elders. That is how ALL of science works, not just biology. Every famous scientist in history in every branch of science earned their fame by discrediting old ideas and proposing newer and more sophisticated ones.

There is no grand conspiracy to discredit creationism. Creationism is essentially irrelevant to the conduct of biological research one way or the other. Genesis is about as relevant to science as the Navajo creation myth of the creation of father sky and mother earth. Or the creation myth of the Chinook peoples here in the Pacific Northwest which involves salmon, a magical thunderbird beast, and the first people emerging from thunderbird eggs. Or the Norse creation myth involving the Norse gods Odin and Frigg who populated Asgard with the first people. Or hundreds of other creation stories. They are all interesting and tell us about the beliefs of ancient people and cultures. But they aren't science. And science doesn't spend its time trying to confirm or refute any of them including Genesis.