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 ...
What about sticking to what they are saying. You immediately go to motive, which is like an anti-evolutionist saying that all evolutionists are trying to promote atheism.
Bingo.
Bingo. In which case you would publish how you came to your new conclusions. At any rate the original paper would stand. Other scientists have already built on it ‘i’m sure’. (cough)
They love selective big government as long as it is for the CAUSE, and now they approve and applaud selective book burning. Stalin was more honest.
The hardcore evolutionist's ridiculous talk about objectivity and principles is the cheapest of the cheap. Pure hypocrisy.
...
I would tend to concur. However, I would caution you in regards to taking anything in the religious texts of any belief system as anything other than man's attempt to make useful sense of the universe around him. Believing that your religion or belief system encompasses the ultimate and only truth is what made the Islamofascist's what they are today.
Thanks for the link. I find this comical. I believe in God, and I have no problems with evolution or Intelligent Design. An omnipotent God could do either. The physical evidence supports evolution, IMHO.
It's --> contraction of "it is" : "It's Bob!" she cried.
Its --> possessive form of "It" : Its wheels were enormous.
Cheers!
That *does* appear to be the situation regarding any type of science or comparison of racial characteristics in anything but an overtly PC fashion.
Try this link for a Nobel Prize winner saying blacks are intellectually inferior.
He has since apologized and resigned from a prestigious position (IIRC at Cold Spring).
If I get time this weekend I will write a vanity on this: since a Nobelist is wrong on genetics, maybe Al Gore is wrong on the weather? ;-)
Cheers!
That was Watson taking back/paying the price for a comment based on his views of science/genetics. If he had referenced a specific paper, or perhaps a theory in general, would that paper / theory have been redacted? I would hope not.
bmflr. I’ve never heard of someone retracting their work except when they found errors. That doesn’t appear to be the case with this finding.
Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan which was accessible through the natural light of reason.
Galileo got some things wrong.
refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.Galileo also said Kepler's idea that the moon caused the tides was "useless fiction."
Wow, this is a new one on me. I didn’t even know that you could withdraw a paper after publication (beforehand, yes.)
Usually what happens is that the scientist writes another paper.
the author can do whatever he wants with his copies.
The rest become collectors editions.
Sorry, you can not unring a bell.
a theory is a judgement, guess or opionion. in other words a belief.
So he is admitting he was wrong. Got it.
Obviously, as he states that in the article. I also think he probably doesn’t want his work to be misrepresented and used to support the idiotic notion of intelligent design.
Since his work was wrong, why should he care if it is used to support intelligent design? I would think that would be a GOOD thing in the scientific community.
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.