Slashdot Mirror


'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."'"

8 of 858 comments (clear)

  1. i'm confused on the timeline by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    he 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 ... creationists cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention.

    Wait, so is the earth billions of years old, or 6000 years old, as told in the bible?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:i'm confused on the timeline by RedACE7500 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's somewhere near the back.

  2. Re:Likely result by vought · · Score: 5, Funny

    The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.


    I can think of about 25% of the U.S. population who prove your statement incontrovertibly true.

  3. Re:Likely result by east+coast · · Score: 4, Funny

    The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.

    Are you talking about the "humans caused global warming" crowd?

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  4. Re:Fantastic! by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now as a creationist all I need to do is take my least favorite scientific postings, twist their words to say what I want them to and viola they get retracted and denounced! Wow, why didn't I think of this before?
    What you are missing is that the original author of the paper acknowledged significant errors in it. Also, where did the music ("viola") come from? I didn't see any reference to music in the original story.
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  5. i would like to make a retraction by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    in 1998 i made an inflammatory post on slashdot in a discussion thread about the merits or lack thereof of windows 98. people have used that post to claim that i am a troll. i am not a troll, i am in fact a lurker. by retracting that post i am able to assert that

    thank you for your attention

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  6. Re:Ironic curiosity by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Terse, unsupported assertions are the enemy of cheese.

    --
    It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
  7. Re:Celebration/Mourning by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is the assertion "Life arose from non-life around three billion years ago on the prehistoric earth" falsifiable without resorting to some form of the anthropic principle?

    Yes. Go three billion light years away with a really strong telescope. Tell me what you see.