The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

Mendel was not a creationist in the modern sense. This is simply false. Yes, he did. However none of his useful work referenced or required that framework. No-one is saying you can't be a theist and do good science, it's when you bring supernaturalism into your work that you hit problems. (Notice the lack of remembered works on alchemy and astrology by Newton?)

No, they weren't - modern creationism is about finding pseudo-scientific lies to support discredited ideas. Pasteur, Neton, Kepler and Copernicus may well have belived in a created world but they weren't going around lying to defend it. It's a lie. He was attempting to classify the diversity of life; created kinds didn't come into it.

Where is your evidence that they were ever convinced by any evidence? Since no alternative explanation existed at the time do you not think that a more likely explanation is that they never questioned it. Funny that creationists lie all the time then. I love the way you post a link that supports my view. He was looking to classify nature, not find 'created kinds'. Whether he believed in such kinds or not is not the point.

John Paul, please learn to use the standard quote tags rather than adopting your own difficult to read method. Only you if you're willing to massively equivocate between terms. The current meaning of evolution applies to descent with natural selection as described by Darwin.You are right, however, that there were alternatives - pretty much any religion has its own pet creation myth. However, all of them are totally lacking in evidence so they don't address my point. Now you're just being stupid. Really? Where then is any reference to the created kind in his classification system?