Yes i have consistenly found in creationist websites and literature a tendency to take real science and pervert the meaning, draw incorrect conclusions, and even fabricate it outright. While I doubt Irish Farmer is being intentionally deceptive, I think he is doing the same things when he calls Pasteur a "creationist" who disproved spontaneous generation.

While Pasteur may or may not have been a Christian, and he did disprove spontaneous generation and developed germ theory, I dont see what the purpose of Irish's observation is, other than to imply--without any good reason--that he did this to somehow "prove" creationism. This is a classic example of using a fact or a scientist to falsely lend weight to a conclusion--a conclusion that probably would have offended the scientist in question.

Can you honestly tell me that Pasteur was a Creationist? Or that, given the science done in the last 150 years, he would still be one now? The idea is completely absurd. The only poeple who are creationists these days are insane, ignorant, or just stubborn and stupid.

While many scientists may believe in a god, I doubt you can find many who believe in Biblical Creation. It seems that people who actually study these things for a living have very different beliefs than people like Irish, who are basically laymen with no science background, and probably little or no higher education. Why would that be?