'55 Science Paper Retracted to Thwart Creationists

i_like_spam writes "The New York Times has up a story about a paper published in 1955 by Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College. The paper, entitled 'Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life', speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in the 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, 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 the paper. 'Dr. Jacobson's retraction is in "the noblest tradition of science," Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, wrote in its November-December issue, which has Dr. Jacobson's letter. His letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, "the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction," and people who "cling to dogma."'"

Comments

Errors passed peer review

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Of course, now with the admission that Jacobson has since discovered errors in his original paper, creationists will call into question all scientific papers - after all, if errors such as those in his paper can get through, who knows how much false information is in the scientific literature!!!

MOD PARENT UP!

[Facetious]

Well said. We all see religious zealotry, but it exists in almost all academic fields as well (mathematics excepted). We just turn a blind eye to it if said zeal matches our own point of view.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Facetious]

Nice strawman. Where are you arriving at the "lack of religion is faith" thing from my words?

I only asserted that those holding scientific views are not immune to zeal. True, religion does not exist in science, but people exist in science, bringing with them all sorts of preconceptions, bruised egos, and the like.

[brief story time]
Many years ago I was a young physics undergrad. I had previously learned of a certain astrophysicist who had been blackballed by the establishment for presenting a view that was contrary to popular theory. His view had nothing to do with God, creation, or Invisible Purple Unicorns.

I asked my department head if he was familiar with this scientist's research. His response was something like, "Oh, you don't want to mess around with anything that guy says." There was no hint of scientific refutation of his work, just him. My undergraduate degree is in math.
[/brief story time]

Now I will suggest, from your kneejerk reaction, that you are possibly one of the zealots I am talking about. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[armchair99]

What makes you believe the Creator is unknowable? The fact that you have chosen not to know? If so, your logic is circular and fatally flawed. Many would argue convincingly that He is in fact very knowable if you only wish it.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[armchair99]

Ah, /. Pointing out flawed logic in a forum that prides itself on logical thought is considered flamebait.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[MBraynard]

You're not a real scientists, either, if you must look with an obtuse eye at some whose theory disagree with your own and and conflate their theories with others whose theories disagree with your own but are more untenable.

Bringing up comments regarding ideology/dogma, Genesis, the Bible, etc. have no place in this discussion you are having now. I'm surprised you didn't try and associate him with young eathers.

Skepticism of Darwinian Evolution does not require any of those. It is possible to be open to the theory of intelligent design as an athiest or an agnostic. You do not need to be 'told' of that theory - or have skepticism of Darwinian Evolution - by your culture/religion/anyone else.

Right now and in this moment, the mechanisms required in ID's theory of the origin of life on earth is observable, testable, and repeatable. None of that can be said of the constantly changing mechanisms behind DE as they become increasingly outlandish - punctuated equalibrium?

DE needs to be recognized for what it is: an ideology, a religion even, supported by blinded adherents with a personal stake - either financial (government/uni grants) or psychological (they think they need it - falsly - to demean the value of mankind - OR they simply want to use it to disassociate themselves with those who disagree witht the theory). I'm guessing you fall into the last camp?