Van Leeuwenhoek Consigned to the Flames by Secularists

It is amazing how secularists, who live by a survival of the fittest mentality, impose their alleged moral standards on people who lived hundreds of years ago. Although they excuse the racism and sexism of Charles Darwin because he was a product of his time and culture, some historical figures are attacked and no excuses made.

Antony Van Leeuwenhoek was a creationist and considered the father of microbiology. His integrity was maligned by secularists who did poor research.
Not that anyone should excuse any actual bad behavior by Antony Van Leeuwenhoek, because all we have is a passel of allegations, inferences, and incomplete research that are far too common among secular scientists. Was he given this "science research" treatment and maligned because he was a Christian and a creationist? Asking for a friend.

Recently, I wrote "How to Conduct Insufficient Research", which parallels some of the shoddy work in the secular science industry that is passed of as meritorious. In this case, they wanted to examine two of Tony's microscopes. After all, he did tremendous scientific work, and they wondered about his equipment.

So, they used some nifty new technology and discovered that, in their opinions, there was nothing special about those microscopes. They even claimed he stole ideas. Like other scientists, he built on the research of others as well as conducting his own. Then they impugned his character based on their presuppositions, assumptions, and incomplete research. Bad trolls! No peanuts! His contributions to medical science and commitment to God still stand.

Antony Van Leeuwenhoek is considered the father of microbiology, since he was the first to report the existence of single-celled organisms and bacteria. Our biography of Leeuwenhoek points to his Christian faith, his attention to detail, his rigorous observations and records, and his delight in finding miniature creations of God. Scientists from Rijksmuseum Boerhaave Leiden and TU Delft, in Leeuwenhoek’s home country of the Netherlands, claim he plagiarized the lens-making methods of Robert Hooke but never told Hooke about it. Their claims, however, are based on subjective and insufficient evidence.

To read the rest, visit "Leeuwenhoek’s Character Questioned". You may also be interested in "Life Is in the Blood", which also discusses Tony's contributions to medical science.

Comments