Posted by: Rob Lester | June 25, 2010

Was Gregor Mendel a “reputable” scientist?

“Between 1856 and 1863, Gregor Mendel cultivated some 29,000 pea plants. The study showed that out of four plants, one had recessive traits, one had dominant traits, and two were hybrids. His experiments were the foundation for two generalizations known today as Mendel’s Laws of Inheritance. Based on his work, he produced the paper Experiments on Plant Hybridization and read it to the Natural History Society of Brünn who published the paper in 1866. Mendel’s paper was rejected at first, since it ran counter to Darwin’s theory which was popular at the time and accepted as being responsible for inheritance. In 1900, Mendel’s work was rediscovered and is now the foundation of the science of genetics. In the past hundred years or so, his work has still received criticism and some have gone so far as to accuse Mendel of scientific fraud, even though his experiments have been recreated with the same results. (This is the difference between true science—repeatable, reliable, observable—and theory–RL). Others have tried to shoehorn his work into the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis, which combines Mendel’s study of genetics with natural selection and gradual evolution. (So much for the “fact” that no reputable or respected scientist rejects evolution–RL). Though Mendel cannot speak for himself today and defend his work, his life as a priest testifies to his faith in the Creator God” (emphasis added–RL). 

The danger of evolution is that if taken to its logical conclusion it virtually demands acceptance of atheism.  Any so-called “science” which results in disbelief in the Creator must be rejected. God’s word is true.

Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Johann Mendel. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 8



  1. I recently took a Biology 101 class at Arizona State University. Moments after the professor assured the class that one genus cannot cross in to another, she began Darwin’s teachings. I raised my hand and asked how (if one genus couldn’t become another) one genus could become another over long periods of time (with incremental changes). I never got a clear answer. Can you explaine to me how they get away with teaching this?

    • Sure. The scientific establishment squashes any dissent. See the film “Expelled.” The only alternative for them is to allow for the supernatural and that cannot be tolerated (although everything else must be).

    • I also have a copy of a request from a creationist group (anonymously) to Arizona University for a radiometric dating of two allosaurus bone samples. They did not say what these samples were or where they came from. The lab came back with dates of 9000 and 16000 years old. Then when the group revealed the truth about the bones and asked the lab for an explanation, they got the response that the samples must have been contaminated or the lab made an error. Shameful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: