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 ...
Another typo dum dum. Why give the typo police ammo?
Ahem, what I meant was it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for me to crack wise without a typo. Biff 19:24.
Did Newton's belief in the Lord and Alchemy get in the way of his learning?
Did Father Lemaitre's belief in the Lord get in the way of his learning?
I could go on but there's no pint. You and Heinlein are both demonstrably wrong.
When Newton and Lemaitre did science, using the scientific method, they achieved results that are still used today.
I agree,,,Theory always changes,,
Take care cuz,,
papers can be withdrawn because ignorant boobs have misintrited it or applied it in an erroneous manner.
Take care cuz,,
Theory changes to become more accurate over time.
That is a strength, not a weakness, in science.
Gotcha! Biff only has 17 Chapters.
Do you burn them?
You believe what you want to believe
You see you don't have to live like a refugee.
IFs buts chickens and tuts.
Put up or ......... keep the faith.....
LOL! The guy’s got plastic covering his fancy clocks, pics and furniture, to keep the bird shit off. I wonder if he wears boots in the house. LOL!
Evidently you and Heinlein are wrong.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. I find no reason to conclude that if you believe that life evolves you can't believe in a creator. I don't pretend to grasp what level of intelligence it would take to set the universe in motion. Having said that, things work out a little too logically to be by pure accident, or so it would seem to me. But to say that evolution could not be part of the creators plan is silly. The Bible is the work of many people, possibly divinely inspired, on a spiritual journey over a couple thousand years and should not be taken as literal scientific truth but rather a chronicle of the "evolution" of mans search for his place in the universe.
If some form of evolution didn't take place and the Earth is only six thousand years old, then God went through a great deal of trouble to make us think otherwise.
True,,Studied electronics from the old tube days,,it was called Electronic Theory,,because it changed,you can’t disgard the tube because of the transistor,,the tube taught you about the transistor,,,even though it did not exist yet.
You're forgetting all the Apochrypha...
The Book of Biff, Esther, Pepsid, Huckabees...
Intelligent design says that natural selection is not sufficient to explain all events relating to evolution. Is this not so?
Athiests are the ones in denial. They have FAITH in unproveable theories. Just because their theories are unproveable they BELIEVE them to be valid. Conversly they BELIEVE creationists unproveabilitiy as proof of denialbility.
Personally I find their faith on about the same par as the Mormons faith in J Smith.
You should really examine how science works, and how faith, theory, belief, and proof are treated in science.
Here are some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). They may help you to better understand the usage of these terms in science:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 8/14/07]
Uh, no it is not.
Intelligent design is an attempt by people of faith to use science to support the Creationist world view.
When confronted by Intelligent Design "fans" I'm always made to think of the old adage about bringing a knife to a gun fight...
That's the book of ETHER not Ester.
And I think you may have been quoting from the deuterocanonical "Second" Book of Biff.
IIRC, in the introduction to that book in Chapter One it says that anyone who quotes from it on a discussion board will be visited by a plague of lurkusts.
I hope you have your flame suit on.
The good doctor would better been better advised to say that he was speculating, not talking about known events. But his speculations does seem to be an extrapolation of the notion of the creation as part of a chain of events beginning with the Big Bang. I mean, what’s the difference between the statement that hydogen and oxygon and carbon atoms and then certain molecules subsequentially appeared? The real problem for the materialists is the Big Bang and the idea of a singular universe. This they are trying to explain away by the devise of the multiverse.
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.