General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Creationists Hit the Panic Button After Neil DeGrasse Tyson Demolishes Their Myth That the Universe [View all]exboyfil
(17,871 posts)and I was struck about his write up on shell fossils. He understood at the time that these shells on top of a mountain represented an important consideration in geology. He knew they could not have been deposited by a great flood (he explains his logic in the text). He obviously did not know about plate tectonics, but he concluded that the earth was much older than commonly believed.
This is 500 years ago. He understood more about science than the fundies do today. To accept their paradigm you have to reject 500 years of observational science. Many of da Vinci's speculations were proven false, but he at least tried to look at the evidence and he was close to a firmer understanding of the world around him (a remarkable achievement given the time and place).
Another consideration is that, while we treasure the writings of da Vinci, Gallileo, Newton, and Darwin; scientists have no problem disproving aspects of their speculations and conclusions. They are not saints. Their writing is infalible. Scientists reputations get made by disproving old paradigms (just ask Einstein and the life scientists that found evidence of horizontal gene transfer).