On the page entitled “Science's Rejection of Evolution,” you list a number of scientists who you suggest rejected evolution in favor of the biblical version of events. You are entitled to believe what you like about evolution, and I respect that. However, I think its highly unfair to hold these scientists up as examples to support your beliefs on evolution. You have listed many fine scientists, true, who have helped make the world what it is today, but first let's remove all the ones who were denied the chance to even consider evolution, as the concept had not yet been published in 1871.
I took your statement they believed in the biblical version as fact for the purpose of my investigation. That removes Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Cuvier, Babbage, Faraday, Herschel, Boyle, Simpson, Vinci, Pascal, Brewster, Woodward, Bacon, Steno, Linnaeus and Davy as possible commentators on the nuances of evolution, as they all died before the theory was published. That takes us down to fourteen scientists. Of the fourteen remaining, Maxwell, Fleming, Lord William Kelvin, George Stokes, William Ramsay and James Joule were not bio-scientists by any stretch. Of the remaining seven, plus the above from Maxwell to Joule, NONE of them lived to see the development of genetics, as far as the discovery of DNA as a storage medium of genetic codes was concerned. Though evidence for evolution exists in other areas, genetics has been crucial in constructing phylogenies, and building on the work Linnaeus began, and estimating evolution rates based on changes in genetic codes. Finally, while it's true Gregor Mendel first identified features could be passed on in discrete units, he had no concept of the existence or significance of DNA.
In conclusion, I would like to ask this; why are none of the scientists you have listed as examples neither able to read The Descent of Man due to it not being available in their lifetimes nor have had access to genetic evidence strongly supporting the theory, yet you have still listed them as having rejected evolution? They could not possibly have made an informed decision on this using modern evidence and techniques, so how does the opinion of this collection of scientists who were unable to make an informed judgment constitute a scientific rejection of evolution? As Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants,” so it is no excuse to argue if the theory was so obvious, why did none of the listed scientists discovered the theory. Darwin was simply working from his own observations, and what had been discovered before, like any other scientist. Should you decide to post this query, I would thank you not to edit it, as there is no spelling mistakes to the best of my knowledge, no profanities, no insults, and no grammatical inconstancies. My question is posed in the best of interests for quality of content for your site.
Sorry, but I did edit your note slightly for formatting and to correct several minor grammar errors, spelling errors and differences in spelling conventions that I had noticed.
You use a flawed standard to argue your point. You assume that none of the scientists listed would have opposed evolution had they had only read Charles Darwin's book. These men were listed because they published statements and scientific data that contradict some point of evolution. They also made statements affirming their belief in God and His creation. I would rather accept a person's word than assume that Darwin's book would have undermined their faith in God and their own observations.
It was amusing to see the numerous hoops you jumped through to artificially narrow the number of famous scientists who did not support the evolutionary theory. First, you selected an arbitrarily late date for the introduction of the theory. As Wikipedia points out, evolutionary theory was known before 1871. Charles Darwin's book was published in 1859. However, he had presented his views prior to the publication of his book as early as 1838.
There is an assumption that Charles Darwin was the originator of the theory of evolution, but this is not the case. Both Darwin and Alfred Russell both presented papers on this theory to the Linnean Society in 1858. But these ideas were not original to either man. Evolutionary arguments date back to Anaximander in the sixth century B.C. Thus, it is not accurate to state that these scientists were unaware of evolutionary theory and unable to comment on it.
Nor is it accurate to say the Charles Darwin introduced such subtle nuances to the theory that would have changed these men's minds if they had just known them. Even today science recognizes that Darwin's book contains numerous flaws and assumptions unsupported by science. This is why there are numerous alternate theories being proposed to "patch" the holes Darwin introduced.
While you might hold out hope that genetics will support evolution, so far it has not. Thus to eliminate scientists on the basis of not knowing about DNA is simply a poor attempt to artificially eliminate contradictory evidence against your position.
You also attempt to artificially eliminate scientists based on their field of study. Yet to find the ever elusive support of evolution, the supporters of this theory have been crossing over into numerous branches of science. One doesn't have to be a bio-scientist to understand the flaws in evolutionary theory. As an example, James Joules' work in thermodynamics cuts into a necessary assumption of evolution, that order can be increased naturally by random chance. Proponents of evolution are making assumptions about a branch of science which the greater scientists in those branches have produced evidence that contradicts the assumptions.
But you act like a lawyer who wants evidence excluded from the court of public knowledge that makes your client look bad. The list given was by no means complete, but its purpose was to show the breadth of scientists of strong reputation, representing numerous fields of study, all making stands supporting creation and opposing evolutionary thought.