Don wrote:

Ken, so you are admitting that these great scientists might just have been creationists? But if they were, you will put it down to their beliefs being the product of the culture of the day? No, these people were not just nominal in their faith, merely reflecting the culture of the day. Was Newton a creationist only because there was no alternative or he was a product of his culture? See above and http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_29July2002.asp

Sean responded:

People are largely products of their environment and the perceptions of that environment. This would also apply to Newton. With his discovery of the laws of motion, calculus and his investigations into the nature of light, he made extraordinary leaps from relative ignorance. I think it is rather desperate of Creation Science to effectively hijack his unfamiliarity with (or provision of) subsequent scientific advancements, as lending credibility to Creation Science.

The question isn’t whether Newton, without the information we now have, was a Young Earth Creationist. The question is, whether he would be one now, given what we now know. For instance, do you seriously think that Newton, if he knew we were receiving light from stars millions of light years away, would conclude that the earth and universe are 6,000 years old? Do you think he would dismiss the findings of biology, geology, astronomy, astrophysics and radiometric dating.

I don’t think so, Don. Newton was a scientist who used science so he could contribute to science. He was in stark contrast to Creation Scientists.

AiG would have us believe that there are a lot of Creation Scientists who are qualified scientists. OK, then, what has Creation Science itself contributed to the world’s scientific knowledge? You should be able to provide a long list of impressive examples. Please make sure that each example _is_ a product of Creation Science.