Librado Romero/The New York Times
Homer Jacobson, unhappy that creationists had cited his work.
Posted on 10/25/2007 6:44:46 PM PDT by neverdem
In January 1955, Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College, published a paper called “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” in American Scientist, the journal of Sigma Xi, the scientific honor society.
In it, Dr. Jacobson speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, “one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.”...
Nobody paid much attention to the paper at the time, he said in a telephone interview from his home in Tarrytown, N.Y. But today it is winning Dr. Jacobson acclaim that he does not want — from creationists who cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention.
So after 52 years, he has retracted it.
The retraction came about when, on a whim, Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google. At age 84 and after 20 years of retirement, “I wanted to see, what have I done in all these many years?” he said. “It was vanity. What can I tell you?”
He found many entries relating to his work on compounds called polymers; on information theory, a branch of mathematics involving statistics and probability; and other subjects. But others were for creationist sites that have taken up his 1955 paper as scientific support for their views.
Darwinismrefuted.com, for example, says Dr. Jacobson’s paper “undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident.” Another creationist site, Evolution-facts.org, says his findings mean that “within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing water,” an impossible feat without a supernatural hand.
“Ouch,” Dr. Jacobson said. “It was hideous.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with what the data points to so you hide the data.
Imagine how God feels when scientists cite his work and don't even give Him credit!
Either way, they are both beliefs! Beliefs require faith.
Evolutionism is a religion. You have to believe/have faith in an unproveable theory.
Intelligent Design makes Chistians look stupid.
No, science corrects it's mistakes.
Dogma and belief can't do that.
You wouldn't find too many conservatives there then (or now even).
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
This “scientist” never doubted the veracity of his paper since 1955, and because it’s cited as evidence FOR creationism, it’s retracted in the name of “science correcting it’s mistakes”
“Dogma” is the notion of us evolving from goo.
“Dogma” is the notion that a finite being (you) is 100% certain that God does not exist.
“Belief” is the proposition that complex organisms that make a F-22 Raptor look like Legos could have assembled from “primordial soup”
It takes more “belief” to be an atheist/evolutionist, frankly.
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
In the good old days, when scientists believed the bible, they used to *cure diseases*. Nowadays, they just help you live with it.
What does retracting a paper because others quote it make a scientist look like?
Exactly why evolution can’t be considered science. Evidence running counter to your dogma being pointed out? Why, just sweep it under the rug! “It never existed, you silly creationist wacko!”
The better reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you found a flaw in your own argument, or some other defect in the paper (e.g. new evidence that contradicted old assumptions).
The worst reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you didn’t like the ideological implications that were inferred by honest work.
It makes him look foolish, in my opinion.
If he's bothered or dismayed by being quoted by the Intelligent Design crowd then better to just ignore them.
But instead, he lends them credibility by this lame gesture, 52 years later, that gets written up in the New York Times.
“No, science corrects it’s mistakes.”
So what was his mistake? That he published data that pointed to something he didn’t believe in?
“Dogma and belief can’t do that.”
Totally agree, this is a perfect example that dogma forces people to close their eyes to reality. So much so that they will retract data; not because its wrong but because it doesn’t support their belief.
I have no arguments with your answer.
When your belief structure in science is right or wrong based on what is built on it, it is dogma to remove it. The thesis should stand on its own feet, and not care what others build with it.
Modern science is dogma, science a hundred years ago was far more scientific. They built their findings into where they did not know. Now they build only where it fits what they "know". One cannot find new ground if one is only going to look where one knows.
But then, flat earthers have controlled science for a long time and called round earthers heritics. They still do. True scientists all know the earth is billions of years old, despite the evidence that debunks it. All those intelegent designers are just thinking out of the nice safe box and are heritics.
You might be interested in this one.
“The worst reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you didn’t like the ideological implications that were inferred by honest work.”
I wonder if any science papers get yanked because some whacked-out skinhead web site uses them as proof of race supremacy?
Only if you don’t understand it!
Dogma and belief can't do that.
Ohhhhh. Hit a nerve with this one, to judge by the replies!
Creationists thought they had a magic bullet, but the author retracted his paper and they are left holding the bag!
What a joke! Now, creationists will have to abandon this paper and catch up with 50+ more years of research!
Oh, no! What'll we do now?
Research? But that's hard work! (Let's go the mall instead.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.