'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

Celebration/Mourning

[BWJones]

This retraction is to be simultaneously celebrated and mourned. Celebrated in the sense that we have a true scientist who will hold up the scientific process and make every effort to prove himself and the community of scientists wrong in order to make the science stronger. When we have individuals that fail to attempt to prove their work as incorrect, we have to acknowledge that they are being driven by other motives and they are not to be trusted.

This noble effort is also to be mourned because of the manipulation and steering of science to fill political goals driven by lack of scientific understanding in the wider community.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[ironwill96]

You're right, it should be celebrated and mourned. To me, it is bothersome that the Scientific community would celebrate it as thwarting "those who cling to dogma".

Dogma implies that people of faith are following something merely because it is pushed by a church and hammered into their skulls, not that people are capable of independent thought and coming to their own conclusions. As a person who does believe in some faith, I seem to be in a small minority (maybe a less vocal group) on Slashdot, but all of these articles bring up the lack of tolerance of people with differing views on both sides - both from people who support some version of Creationism and from those who hold to strict Scientific beliefs. I tend to compromise in the middle which I guess makes me a sell-out to both sides, but at least i'm clear about where I stand.

I hope that both sides can be more capable of independent thought and not snipe at each other constantly, it is child-ish and something that I thought we could have outgrown by now.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[BWJones]

You're right, it should be celebrated and mourned. To me, it is bothersome that the Scientific community would celebrate it as thwarting "those who cling to dogma".

I am unaware of any scientist who is celebrating this as a thwart to "those who cling to dogma". What we are celebrating is the willingness of a scientist to retract his own work when it failed to be held up to scientific investigation and contained errors. The willingness of the classically trained scientist to search for veracity and be enthusiastic enough to put their work up for criticism by ones colleagues while also be willing to retract work that cannot be held as scientific fact is what is to be celebrated.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[bockelboy]

Not everything in life is facts and observations. You don't have to believe in life-after-death to have a religion (or belief system, if you will). Science and humanity can be two different things.

If you think faith is about fairy tales about an afterlife, you've been talking to the wrong people. I suppose, to me, the important part is that you are happy and centered with yourself. For me, that involves being a Christian; for you, it's apparently being a rationalist.

I suspect your problem is with people who try to shape science around a faith; that's silly. But then again, there are a lot of angry, silly people in the world.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[pluther]

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?

Absolutely it's falsifiable.

One way to falsify it would be to show evidence that there was life on the earth before then.

Another way would be to discover life elsewhere, on some other planet, and demonstrate that it has a common ancestor in the evolutionary chain as ourselves. This would not immediately disprove Earth as the origin, but it would indicate that it is not necessarily the origin of all life.

Another way to falsify the statement would be to demonstrate that despite extensive search there has been no evidence of life found in three billion year old strata (I have no idea if we actually have access to any, outside the moon). This would indicate life arose more recently.

There are all sorts of ideas about how abiogenesis may have come about, and a number of people are researching, coming up with theories and hypotheses, and, most importantly of all, ideas on how they can be investigated.

Of course, there is no generally accepted theory of abiogenesis yet, the way there is of gravity, electro-magnetism, and evolution by natural selection. But they're working on it.

Which is more than can be said of any Creationist. In all the years they've been around, they've yet to suggest a single experiment, or come forth with any single thing their "theory" would predict. All they can do is dig up gaps in our current understanding of evolutionary processes and claim they are "proof" of whatever they want to propose.

Re:Celebration/Mourning

[mrpeebles]

Only 19th+ century fundamentalists are unimaginative enough to read Genesis as a set of supernatural claims. (Maybe in another thousand years groups will consider Romeo and Juliet a parable warning parents to let their kids date who they want to.) Creationists take the differences between science and religion and push them under the rug; I claim you are caricaturizing them. Science is only retrospectively based on evidence and consensus. Scientific discovery requires as much faith as any religion. And religion does not ignore evidence. The progression from sacrificing first born children at the altar of Baal to secular government and nonviolent resistence has not been a random walk.

As for cognitive dissonance: I consider myself a "moderately" religious person. I do not blindly believe in Genesis. However, when I see how violence propogates itself through generations in the middle east and elsewhere, I cannot believe that idea of original sin does not resonate with some Truth. Certainly Adam and Eve were not real, but a quantum mechanical wavefunction may not be real either.

My life is filled with actions and belief not based on evidence or logic though. For example, I could probably fill pages with the strange rituals I use to beg microsoft software products to not crash. No, I think cognitive dissonance is believing that throughout history all human behavior has been dominated by irrational beliefs, except for 21st century atheists.

Just my 2 cents.

Futile Effort

[eldavojohn]

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?" That's vanity? No, the only thing he's missing is a bottle of Jack Daniels & that's how I spend my Friday nights!

But in all serious, this is going to be a pretty futile effort. It's greatly appreciated but it's probably going to backfire. This could be spun as 'lawyers' forcing a scientist's views out of sight, a scientist that's just trying to tell the truth. The same lawyers that have orchestrated the dinosaur bones found across the world.

And the character assassination from the Creationists will most likely consist of 'waffler' and 'flip-flopper', two terms I have no idea why they even exist.

This is the sign of a man of the highest quality in my eyes. I only wish that everyone--especially the politicians--look to him for guidance in how to 1) take ownership of something when you're wrong and 2) fix it.

Re:Futile Effort

[Anonymous Coward]

And the character assassination from the Creationists will most likely consist of 'waffler' and 'flip-flopper', two terms I have no idea why they even exist.

Let me explain. There are three methods by which we determine the credibility of a statement:
- Logos: The logical properties of the statement.
- Ethos: The credibility of the speaker.
- Pathos: The emotional response to the statement ("gut feeling")

In the world of science, Logos rules. It doesn't matter if Jesus or Hitler say, "2+2=4". It also doesn't matter how anybody feels about "2+2=4"; regardless, it's mathematically true, and you don't find truth much stronger.

Outside of the world of science (to the chagrin of scientists and all rationally-minded people everywhere), ethos and pathos carry some rhetorical weight.

Somebody says: "The lives of the people in Iraq are returning to normal."
- Do you think it's true if George Bush says it on TV?
- Do you think it's true if the Washington Post prints it?
- Do you think it's true if you see it on FOX News?
- Do you think it's true if you hear it on Air America Radio?

I certainly would assign different credibility ratings to each of those sources.

Now directly to the point. In the domain of logos, 'waffler' and 'flip-flopper' make no sense. Changing one's position based on new information is the basis of increasing knowledge. On the ethos and/or pathos side, people like consistency from their speakers. People who change their "position" on something are seen as less reliable ("They were wrong before, they're probably wrong again.") and perhaps corrupt ("He's been paid off by X, of course he's backpedaling on his earlier statement.")

Finally, consider that each domain has it's purpose. In the lab, borrow sparingly from pathos for a "hunch" and use logos for everything else. At the pub, use pathos to find a girl to take home, and use ethos/logos in the morning. (Also note that the girl who doesn't go home with you may be using ethos to raise her credibility as a good mate. In which case, use logos to try to find her again.)

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Likely result

[TheMeuge]

The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons.

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

Re:Likely result

[TheMeuge]

Or we'll just say that nothing is written in stone, and the papers you publish today may be retracted tomorrow when you change your minds.

Papers are retracted when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their conclusions... most of the time that happens when new facts emerge as the science progresses.
<blockquote>This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.</blockquote>
I think the bigger concern is that you look for "objective truth"(tm)... There is no such thing - there is only "best approximation" based on the evidence thus far obtained. Science and the scientific method just happen to provide the best framework for making reasonable judgments about the real world, based on theories, the only measure of the success of which, is their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.

If you come up with a better system, let me know. Until then, I'll be happy with an idea, rather than a belief-based "objective truth", thank you.

Re:Likely result

[MightyMartian]

"Vance Ferrell, who said he put together the material posted on Evolution-facts.org, said if the paper had been retracted he would remove the reference to it. Mr. Ferrell said he had no way of knowing what motivated Dr. Jacobson, but said that if scientists "look like they are pro-creationist they can get into trouble.""

Ah yes, another favorite tactic of the pseudo-scientific con-artists. "I can't say why he's doing it, but here's why he's doing it..."

Re:Likely result

[Archangel Michael]

'withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons."

But isn't that exactly what has happened?

And, if it isn't "correct", then what else has scientists written that isn't "correct" yet still remains because it DOES support the current dogma (eg Global Warming/Cooling)?

The point I'm making isn't pro-creationist/anti science or pro-science/anti creationist but rather trying to make the case that conclusions of science can be wrong, and yet still be accepted by scientists, who are blinded by current dogma.

Re:Likely result

[Itchyeyes]

I can think of about 100% of the US population who prove his statement incontrovertibly true. Everyone is biased. The difference is between the ones who are aware of their own biases and those who are deluded into thinking that they aren't.

Re:Likely result

[Archangel Michael]

If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.

Which makes it a dogmatic problem, not a factual one. He's just lucky to have found it before he died, to correct the wrong conclusions of his scientific paper which doesn't line up with current scientific dogma.

"As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it."

I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING. Of course, it has an escape clause of time(can't test it). Can you tell me what is the difference between creationism and evolution? Both have an escape clause of time, don't they?

When scientists can create life from inert matter, I'll agree that evolution conforms to the scientific method (Thesis, Antithesis, Hypothesis, Synthesis, Replication etc). Until then, don't call it scientific fact, nor treat it as such.

It may indeed be the best theory you have, but it is still a theory.

Re:Likely result

[ultranova]

Everyone is biased. The difference is between the ones who are aware of their own biases and those who are deluded into thinking that they aren't.

Nah. The difference is between the people who are aware of their biases - namely, me and everyone who agrees with me - and people who are sadly deluded and too caught up in the web of deceit or just plain too stupid to realize it or too stubborn to admit it, or who actually purposefully and maliciously lying and/or engaged in a huge conspiracy against the truth for whatever reason.

If you or the moderators disagree, that's just because your bias of thinking yourself as objective. Let go of your bias and support the objective point of view by modding me up ;).

The thing is, we humans don't actually perceive reality, we perceive an approximation of it, produced by our senses and mental faculties. It is impossible to know how closely your approximation actually resembles reality as a whole or at any particular point, because you have no way of comparing it to reality proper, because the latter is not perceptible to you. That's why people usually assume that their approximation is a good match and anyone who disagrees is wrong or biased. And this is assuming that a particular perception is actually based on some objective reality, which is not at all certain for things like moral values.

What this means is that no one is truly aware of their own biases, since that awareness could only be gained by comparing your approximation of reality to reality proper, which is impossible. You, gentle reader, are biased, and not aware of all of your biases, no matter how certain you are of your own objectivity. You can trust me on this, because I clearly am truly objective, being aware of all this :).

Re:Likely result

[TheMeuge]

If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.

Are you talking about the scientist himself, or the article?

Also, if your ideas that are incorrect were coopted by a bunch of insane pricks, wouldn't you want to set the record straight?

Re:Likely result

[NeutronCowboy]

You do realize that Occam's razor is not a predictive theory, but rather a heuristic employed when looking at competing ideas? QED is mind-boggling in its complexity, but no one would dream of applying occam's razor to it and replace it with the old approach of "light is instantaneous."

Re:Likely result

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.

False. His attention was drawn to the paper because it was being quoted by creationists. He reviewed it to see what they could be getting at. He saw a number of errors in the paper. He withdrew it. RTFM.

The errors did allow creationists, whom he does call "malignant anti-darwinists" or something similar, to mislead people. So given that a group of people who are known to mislead people using poor logic and false claims were using his errors in their disgusting work, he was strongly motivated to retract the paper. But it was the errors that were the sufficient condition for retraction, not the use of those errors by dishonest charlatans.

One of the many, many dishonest things creationists do is misrepresent what science is, implying that to be scientific a belief must be supported by nonsensically high standards of proof. If they weren't completely ignorant of how science is actually done they'd realize that no fundamental theory is sufficiently well supported to be called "science" by their fabricated criterion.

"Can't make gravity waves in the lab! I guess general relativity is just a theory!"

Of course, only people who are completely ignorant of science or completely dishonest in their claims about what science is would say such a thing.

Which are you?

Re:Likely result

[Bellum Aeternus]

"Facts don't change with time"

Really? So the earth is still flat and the sun revolves around it? and matter is seamless?

Get a grip. What we humans call "facts" are our closest approximation of the truth we have now. Once you realize that, facts do indeed change with time. That's the beauty and the problem with science; it's not dogma but a collection of evidence over time accumulated so that current and future generations can make better and better attempts to understand nature. As we accumulate more evidence our understanding changes and things we may have believed to be fact in the past are known to be incorrect now (or things we believe to be fact now may not be considered fact in the future).

Religion's failure has always been a resistance to change and the truth because those in power only remain in power if they have all the keys.

Re:Likely result

[Chris Burke]

If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.

You should withdraw this post because it is wrong.

He re-read the paper because of the quotes by creationists. It was re-reading the paper that revealed the errors in the paper. It was the errors is the paper that caused him to withdraw it.

Do you get it? He withdrew the paper because it was wrong. Creationists drove him to discover that it was wrong, but their quotes are not WHY it was withdrawn.

I don't have a problem with the scientific method. However Evolution isn't PART of the scientific method, because it hasn't predicted ANYTHING.

Of course it has. Experiments done on flies and bacteria have borne out the predictions of evolution, and frequently we discover fossils belonging to an intermediary species predicted by evolution. Hell, DNA itself was predicted by evolutionary theory, in particular a biological method of passing traits from parent to offspring that does NOT include traits acquired during life.

When scientists can create life from inert matter, I'll agree that evolution conforms to the scientific method

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, it only explains the diversification of life. Stop acting like you respect the scientific method when you can't even apply it.

Re:Likely result

[Chris Burke]

Additional research. There's been quite a lot of that done in the 55 years since the paper was published.

Re:Likely result

[0xygen]

Incidentally, regarding your sig... It is Flamebait, not Flaimbate.

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that your sig IS flamebait?

Shame I spent my modpoints already... but then I would not get to tell you why.

Re:Likely result

[Tack]

Until religion makes claims about the physical universe that contradicts what we have learned through science. Then suddenly coexistence isn't quite as easy.

Re:Likely result

[VendettaMF]

It's a fairly safe bet I have read the bible more thoroughly and more critically than you.
Six times in full, solo (though I will confess to skimming the "Begats" and the Psalms.
Twice in full in day by day study with a study group (No skimming).
Dozens of times piecemeal in search of specific items.

Christianity which is not based on traditions, but rather on faith in the Word of God which has withstood thousands of years of oppression

Exactly the same as every other religion and their infallible texts which have been miraculously supplied and preserved. It's nonsense to claim a special place for christianity. It's not any different.
There's nothing wrong with (your branch of) Christianity being a religion. That one is a pointless battle. You're fighting against the very definition of religion. Your claim though that christianity is not tradition based is a nonsense. The traditions are mostly documented in the bible you clutch, and others are disguised as being "an understanding of the true meaning" of the same.

As you said, you've located two of the items for yourself. You have however, started cherry-picking already. You claimed that all scripture is God-Breathed. Make up your mind.

But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest
here's a hint. There are none! The bibles writers believed that insects had four legs. Are you telling me you trust the Divine Inspiration through a process that can't even transmit a single digit number without error?

And no, pi does not, in effect, equal 3. That you would even suggest so indicates a lack of critical thought on your part that borders on the unforgivable in a forum specifically aimed for nerds and geeks.

Night, Day and Plants pre-sun... Perhaps you should actually go and read Genesis yourself? It's the very 1st chapter and already the books credibility (and yours for all your claims of knowing it better than me) is falling apart.

1st : Night and Day.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

2nd:Plants
11: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

3rd:Sun and moon
14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Regarding Pi:
I Kings 7
23: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about.

2 Chronicles 4
2: Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

God can't do math. Delightful.

See now, I'm sorry so many years of your life have been wasted indoctrinating yourself (or being indoctrinated) into a false belief, but living an entire life in this level of denial would be even worse. Open your eyes. The bible is no

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[east coast]

Where in the bible does it state that the earth is 6000 years old? Can you please quote this?

Of course this only proves science is wrong

[Opportunist]

I'm fairly sure the reaction will be that "see? Science erred and it will err again, only The Book is infallible".

You can't discuss with religious zealots.

Why did he do it?

[Cro Magnon]

If he discovered clear errors and retracted it for that reason, that's fine, if somewhat tardy.

If he retracted it just because creationists quoted it, that's an example of the same dogma religious zealots are critisized for.

Re:Why did he do it?

[Ambitwistor]

He says he no longer believes the arguments in that paper:

"Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors. [...] Another assertion in the paper, about what would have had to occur simultaneously for living matter to arise, is just plain wrong, he said, adding, "It was a dumb mistake, but nobody ever caught me on it.""

Re:Why did he do it?

[Merk]

If you RTFA, it says that he was reminded of the paper because the creationists quoted it. Because it was brought to his attention again he re-read it. He discovered it contained embarrassing factual errors, so he retracted it. It's too bad that he only caught the errors after they had been misused, but it's great that he caught the errors eventually and responded appropriately.

Re:Why did he do it?

[Merk]

It's pretty likely that his research being cited to help prove something he didn't believe was enough to get him to look it over more closely. If his research had been used to prove something he believed to be true, he probably wouldn't have examined it as closely. You really can't take the motivation out of science, but as long as the science is sound, it doesn't really matter.

As for whether re-reading something years later would show any errors to be obivious, I would hope so. If the field has advanced a lot, it's pretty likely that people would know not only whether something happens, but why. If your original experiment was built on some assumptions which have proven to be wrong over the years then those assumptions would probably stand out.

"Under the circumstances I mention, just a bunch of chemicals sitting together, no," he said. "Because it takes energy to go from the things that make glycine to glycine, glycine being the simplest amino acid." There were potential sources of energy, he said. So to say that nothing much would happen in its absence "is totally beside the point." "And that is a point I did not make," he added.

So, reading it years later, when everybody knows that there were all kinds of sources of energy, a passage that talks about what was possible in the absence of energy would stand out. Maybe when it was written, the fact that there was a lot of energy wasn't as well known, so this assumption didn't stand out as much.

that is precisely the problem with creationists

[non]

they don't understand evolution. in fact its a lot like compound interest; start with a little and wait a long time and eventually you'll have something. the following statement, for example, amounts to precisely that in my eyes.

'one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.'

thats all it takes. and yes, given enough time, they could turn into some sexually-reproductive organism, which, to use my earlier example, would be like getting monthly compounding ;-)

i frankly see no reason for this retraction. there is no 'ammunition' here in any sense.

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[Chess_the_cat]

No single verse in the Bible states the age of the Earth. Nor does the Catholic church, or any other organized church, deny Evolution. Unaffiliated Christians on the other hand...well they're all over the place. I went to Catholic school and we learned about evolution. Fuck, read Genesis and you'll see that the creation story pretty much mirrors evolution anyway. First there was nothing, then stars formed, light, planets formed, fish, then animals, then man. It's the same damn thing morons.

Because of "creationists"...

[Empiric]

...he's retracting his paper?

Is his paper right, or wrong? If he's claiming the first and retracting it, science is harmed, not furthered. If it's wrong, retraction should happen anyway.

This is really irrational. I understand the motivation to find any position of anyone on the planet that decries "creationism" and post it, but do you really want to overtly demonstrate your complete dependence on it in that way, while committing some really obvious non-sequiturs along the way?

Re:Because of "creationists"...

[Arcturax]

Oh I should also add... think about when it was written too... 1955? At the time conclusions might have seemed reasonable as well given what we knew about the Earth's history back then. Since that time we've learned a lot more about Earth's history and the conditions that existed back then. Think of all we've advanced in since then. A broad paper such as this touches on geology, chemistry, physics, biology and astronomy. All of these fields have advanced by an incredible amount in the last 52 years. So the conclusions may look quite silly today given what we know. Back in 1955 they may have held a bit more weight due to limited or even incorrect knowledge we had at the time.

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[CmdrGravy]

That's hilarious. I like this bit

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!

I guess what he meant to say was

Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! Apart from the idea that the bible is a revelation from his inifite creator and is self authenticating and self-attesting

It's really hard to understand how people can be so completely deluded.

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[feed_me_cereal]

The same faith held by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Last time I checked, the "scientists" were outnumbered.

Last time I checked, popular belief didn't make things true. A majority of the population of the world used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It was this "scientific minority" you speak of that happened to be right. This was not an isolated incident, either; it has happened fairly regularly throughout history.

Our documentation is far older than anything they have.

...Which only means it was written by less informed people. How does this help you? Guess what, there are religious texts/artifacts that are older than the Bible. Perhaps you should switch to paganism.

Listen, pal, if you don't trust scientists, then give up all your modern conveniences and move into a cave. You should be respectful of the work they've done to provide you with what you have.

Re:When will creationist realize?

[MightyMartian]

You are aware, I trust, that other than a remotely small number of scientists out there, there is no debate. Creationism and Biblical Literalism were tossed in the trash heap of bad ideas beginning in the 18th century (actually a helluva lot earlier, if you count St. Augustine, and even earlier if you count the fact that the Jews hadn't believed in the Hebrew rip-off of Sumerian cosmography for a few centuries prior to Christ).

There is no debate in the scientific community about whether evolution produced all life or not. There's a cultural and political debate, which scientists have been dragged into. Whatever you make of your opinions and claims, don't pretend for one moment that science is on your side.

Creationism vs Science

[Seismologist]

Creationism vs Science is always an interesting exercise in frustration (for me at least). I know a individual who calibrates and maintains certain testing gauges with radioactive sources. I went to a trainig seminar in which he was discussing the radioactive half-life etc. of radioactive sources, the usual basic chemistry spiel. Then he confided to us all that he was a creationist and that he really doesn't believe the the radioactive decay is not more than 6000 years old for any given substance due to the "fact" that the earth is not older than 6000 years old according to him even though he had told us that the half-life for certain sources he was talking about exceeded well beyond 6000 years.

I tried to argue that if you had material half derived from the decayed original radioactive source and that the other remaining radioactive half has a half-life of 6000 years, then the original piece of material must be 12000 years old. Of course that argument fell on deaf ears, just like the other argument I proposed on the age of the sedimentary layering found in the Grand Canyon exposed from downcutting erosion by the Colorado River, which also took a certain rate to cut through ("with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years," according to the wikipedia entry). No matter what the rational argument was, no counter argument was offered or even justified.

Granted creationism is based on religious faith rather than evidence acquired through experiment and observation, it cannot be evaluated by the scientific method. The two "ideologies," if you will, are incompatible as the scientific discipline does not attempt to address issues of supernatural intervention in natural phenomena. Thus we are reduced to a scientific consensus rejecting any attempt to teach creationism as science and visa versa. The classic example of this ideology incompatibility is the creation-evolution belief/theory.

Ignorance is bliss sometimes indeed.

How Times have Changed

[oni]

When the paper was published in 1955, it wasn't controversial, and there weren't creationists around to parade it as proof of their ideas. This whole giant clusterfuck "debate" where so many people make fools of themselves with this ID/creationism idea, is actually fairly new - let me be clear, what I mean is, the fury of the controversy is new. In 1955, a scientist could publish a paper about evolution and then go to church on Sunday. Science and religion weren't seen as either/or propositions as they are today. The generation that advanced science (arguably) more than any other, the generation that gave us computers and space travel, didn't get its panties in a bunch over evolution or religion.

What seems to have happened is that some creationists decided to make evolution their litmus test. They decided to make it a big controvery. They decided to tell people that "omfg we have to oppose this with every fiber of our being" and I really haven't a clue why they did that (other than being stupid).

This has happened before. There used to be people who believed in geocentrism for the exact same reason taht people reject evolution - because they just honestly WANT to believe the bible. But here's the deal, even creationist don't believe in geocentrism, yet creationist still believe the bible. So what happened? They just changed their interpretation of it. I can't figure out why they don't just do that again.

Re:How Times have Changed

[Corporate Drone]

The generation that advanced science (arguably) more than any other, the generation that gave us computers and space travel, didn't get its panties in a bunch over evolution or religion.

What seems to have happened is that some creationists decided to make evolution their litmus test. They decided to make it a big controvery. They decided to tell people that "omfg we have to oppose this with every fiber of our being" and I really haven't a clue why they did that (other than being stupid).

If I understand the situation correctly, the reason that "some creationists decided to make evolution their litmus test" wasn't "stupidity", but rather, a later addendum to the idea of evolution -- the philosophical assertion that, if evolution were true, then there's no such thing as God (or, at least, proof that there's no "hand of God" in the creation of the universe).

Whereas Darwin's introduction of the theory was met by folks who were offended by the idea that we evolved from apes (rather than created "on the sixth day"), the current crop of ID'ers are offended, essentially, that a scientific theory has been twisted to draw philosophical (/theological) conclusions about the existence of God. In order to undermine the philosophical conclusions, then, they're attacking the underlying scientific theory.

IMHO, it's a more effective strategy to say "evolution is science, not philosophy. show me where evolution proves there's no God, and I'll listen. otherwise, go back to your dogmatic corner, and I'll stay in mine..." ;^)

Re:Ironic curiosity

[Arcane_Rhino]

So, faith in chance is better than faith in tradition and personal experience. Interesting perspective. I hope it brings joy and peace to your life.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[ArikTheRed]

We're talking about evidence here, which has nothing to do with joy or peace. Facts don't care if you feel good about them.

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[bckrispi]

read Genesis and you'll see that the creation story pretty much mirrors evolution anyway. First there was nothing, then stars formed, light, planets formed, fish, then animals, then man. It's the same damn thing morons.

So where in the evolutionary ladder do the talking snakes and rib-clone women fit?

Science vs. Faith

[$lingBlade]

Hasn't this argument been beaten to death already? Maybe I'm wrong, and yes I'm over simplifying but basically it comes down to this: Science tries to explain *how* things happened, Faith tries to explain *why* things happened. At least in terms of planetary history. Personally, I'm interested in both how and why things happen the way they do. Most times, in my experience, science does a better job at explaining how things are happening and sometimes why they happen. I lost my faith in faith around the time I started asking questions and got back a lot of crappy answers. However, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of *some* kind of creative force simply because we may not have the tools to demonstrate or understand it fully.

Stupid Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Waste of time, effort, and intellect on all sides.

Let faith speak to faith and science speak to science. The two are unrelated.

Asses on both sides should shut the hell up.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[Rasit]

What makes you believe the Creator is unknowable? [...] Many would argue convincingly that He is in fact very knowable if you only wish it.

Yet no one that claims to know Him can agree on what he really want, so he is either unknowable or he have a dissociative identity disorder.

Re:The article stereotypes faith

[808140]

The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith.

Not necessarily. Blanket statements like this are stupid. Sure, some people refuse to allow their faiths to be challenged, but most of my experience with people of faith has been the opposite.

While I agree that blanket statements are often stupid, sometimes they are correct. In this case, your experiences seem to fly in the face of everyone else's.

All science is based on axioms as well, which aren't supported either, that's why they're called axioms.

No, science is not based on axioms — you're thinking of mathematics, which is not the same thing. Science is not based on deductive logic like math is — quite the opposite, in fact. Science is based on inductive logic, which works in the opposite direction: the scientist observes the world around him and tries to elucidate its underlying structure from those observations. So in a sense, the scientist does not know what the axioms are; he is trying to discover them.

Both scientists and people of faith have a hard time when someone questions their axioms.

Ignoring for a moment your misuse of the term "axiom": I will concede that a scientist who has developed his own theories and who accepts them may find it difficult or painful to accept that they are wrong. However, science as a discipline is founded on the notion that models and theories must be tested, and one scientist (or a group of scientists) stubbornly refusing to accept that their models are incorrect does not materially effect science as a whole, especially in the long term. Religion is not at all the same in this regard; many people continue to reject observable phenomena because they contradict their faith.

But I see no evidence to show that people of faith are less likely to accept a challenge of their axioms: in fact, they are more likely to accept that challenge, and if truly presented with something that can prove it's falsity, I would say a person of faith is much more likely to overturn that belief than a mathematician would be to overturn one of Euler's axioms.

I should warn you; I am a mathematician. What are Euler's axioms?

Leaving that aside for now, it seems from your comment that you are profoundly confused about the differences between science and mathematics, the latter being properly thought of as a branch of philosophy, and not science at all. Math does not concern itself with what is true in a physical sense; from a mathematical perspective, whether the world is flat or round is of no importance whatsoever. Math is a logical excursion, and at a core level axioms are totally arbitrary. It's a game of logic, and we deduce what we can from a few axioms that we essentially make up. Now, it is true that it is not possible to prove that a sufficiently complex set of axioms is self-consistent; you might say that we take this as a matter of faith. But it isn't faith that is anything like religious faith: it's more like having faith that the Sudoku puzzle you're wrestling with has a solution even if you lack the mathematical ability to prove that it really does.

Math cannot, by its nature, be in conflict with religion. It does not attempt, by itself, to predict or characterize anything in the natural world. That scientists find it a useful tool is a happy coincidence (or unhappy, depending on your belief system).

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I suppose I should have made it clear in my post that I'm not a creationist, and I think that AiG is bunk. What I was trying to do was counter the meliorist attitude of the OP -- there seem to be a lot of folks out there who aren't exactly creationists themselves, but who have convinced themselves that creationism (and other fundamentalist claptrap) "isn't really that bad," or "no one really believes that stuff anyway except a few fringe wackos," and "anyway, scientists can be fanatics too." My point in posting the AiG link was to show that:

- Yes, it really is that bad;

- There are a lot of people who believe that stuff, sincerely and absolutely, and many of them are -- if perhaps still wackos -- certainly very well-spoken and serious in their arguments;

- And there is no reasonable comparison between the scientific viewpoint, which has as its core tenet the understanding that our current state of knowledge is always incomplete and is subject to change as new evidence comes in, and the fundamentalist viewpoint, which insists that its chosen scriptures represent absolute, immutable, and irrefutable truth.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[gomiam]

You miss the point. Faith isn't scientific. If having faith brings you joy and peace, congratulations. But don't try to bring it into science, for faith requires belief without proof, and science requires proof before belief. Taking the concept from Carl Sagan, faith is usually prejudice and science is postjudice.

Re:i'm confused on the timeline

[DragonWriter]

If you hold that the tale of Genesis is literally true, you get a certain span from the lineage from Adam through to Solomon.

No, if you hold that the tale of Genesis is literally true, you get a contradiction, because there are two creation stories in Genesis that are contradictory if taken literally.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[sabernet]

When I tell them, yes. That's the point of communication: to get your bloody point across. I've failed at communication if what I said can be paraphrased to mean both "You're cool." and "Kill all infidels."

I don't go to my car dealer and stare him down while uttering, "This vehicle...it bleeds. Lo be those that do so. Fix thusly. Cheese wagon, rolling softly down the goat mouse."

But to be fair, most of the paraphrasing in religion stems from the fact that many people are trying to live based on an instruction manual written over a millennium ago in a different language. Sort of like using the Japanese booklet for an Atari2600 to learn how to configure your American DVR to record your favorite shows.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[gaderael]

If their faith brought them joy and peace, they wouldn't be trying to force it on everyone else though bogus "scientific" theories.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[tompaulco]

science requires proof before belief.
That is not true. You are thinking of Math.
Science merely requires a sufficiently small amount of contradictory evidence before belief. Science is ALWAYS WRONG, and is ALWAYS in the pursuit of replacing theories which are OBVIOUSLY WRONG with theories that are more SUBTLY wrong.
If Science were ever RIGHT on a particular subject, there would be no more need to perform science on it. But we always find that no matter how closely a scientific theory matches reality, there is always room for improvement.

Re:No

[skeptictank]

A theory that can't be disproved is not a scientific theory.

This whole debate has devolved into a dogmatic pissing match. With "scientific" evolutionist on one side and creationist on the other. There is no knowledge to be gained from this crap - its at the point where "our guy that said something that supported your argument withdraws his statement". In other words it becomes clear that the whole thing is about politics, not science, not religion, not truth.

And the proof...

[Aehgts]

The best (paraphrased) quote from my highschool physics teacher:
"You can choose any arbitrary point, including yourself, to be the center of the universe. The maths is just easier the way we have it."
So, having chosen myself as the center of the universe, my bias is of course the only one true view. The rest of you are obviously deluded...
:)

Re:Ironic curiosity

[Nephilium]

That's easy. A visible, measured, violation of the laws of science.

In short. A miracle.

Nephilium

Thank You, Doctor

[hyades1]

As an educated, rational person who has been marginalized by loud-mouthed, stupid ideologues, I would like to offer Homer Jacobson my most sincere thanks. By withdrawing his paper, he reminds us of how the scientific method is really supposed to work, and why it is the most powerful problem-solving tool yet created by man. It is this power that both tempts and terrifies religious zealots.

Dr. Jacobson also reminds us that science is more than the current crop of grant-whores chasing corporate bucks with the same intensity as a Congressman chases a teenaged page.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[savorymedia]

and science requires proof before belief.

Um, no. Science only requires EVIDENCE before belief. The "Law" of Gravity is still just a theory. Have we been able to measure gravitational waves yet? No. Have we found the "gravitron" yet? No. Every theory, until it is disproven, is still Science's best guess.

And, yeah, I'm going here: Evolution is still a theory. It is Science's best guess of how life came about. There is plenty of evidence that it could be actually true. It may be disproven one day. My whole point is stop acting like Science can answer EVERYTHING. So far, it can't.

DISCLAIMER: I am a nondenominational protestant Christian. I'm not a zealot. I don't believe that Science and Religion are diametrically opposed. I can easily go into Genesis and point out a number of passages that could be interpreted that God used evolution as His engine of creation. I'm not going there *now*, as I need sleep. But if someone wants to, I'll go into that in the morning. :)

Re:reversing the burden of proof

[misanthrope101]

The assertion that disease is not caused by demonic possession is not falsifiable--does that cast doubt on the germ theory? My point, loosely, is that many attack evolution through what they consider to be its weak point--abiogenesis. Abiogenesis actually isn't part of evolutionary theory, and Darwin's Origin of Species doesn't even address where life came from, only where the variety came from. Anyway, the attack on abiogenesis is easy because you can turn skeptic and say "you can't falsify this, so it's not science," and my point here is that science deals only with the natural world, and all explanations are going to lie in the natural world, even if they have to remain speculative and even hazy. At no point is science going to throw up its hands and say "we can't prove where life started, so it must've been Shiva|Mithra|God|Zeus!" I've read a bit on abiogenesis, and all of the writers I've seen have cautioned repeatedly that the area is speculative at best. It has no bearing on evolutionary theory.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[dwye]

> But don't try to bring it into science,
> for faith requires belief without proof,

Actually, that is belief, even in the absence of proof. If a time machine goes back, and demonstrates that the Gospel account of the Crucifixion and Resurrection is as close to absolutely accurate as possible, faith does not require me to now disbelieve in those events because they CAN now be proven.

> and science requires proof before belief.

Then scientifically prove that there is something, rather than nothing with your senses being deluded.

Decartes could do it by believing that a Loving God wouldn't do something like that to him, but you are not Decartes.

I think that the only scientific answer is that it is not a useful hypothesis, compared to belief in an independent Universe, at least for now. After all, you MIGHT be in The Matrix, or a holocube like Dr. Moriarity on ST:TNG, and you could never know.

Science require evidence before belief, and a willingness to set aside beliefs if the evidence against them becomes too strong (and too strong is left to the individual). It rarely requires proof, and usually that its hypotheses can be disproven (at least in theory) if incorrect.

Re:Ironic curiosity

[Alsee]

the Bible, which is God-Breathed according to 2 Timothy 3:16

I'm really not looking to debate theology, but I'd like to note:
(1) That is obviously circular. If the the Bible is not God-Breathed OR not flawlessly-scribed OR not flawlessly-translated, then it's circular reference to itself obviously doesn't change anything.
(2) The majority of Christians do not see a conflict between evolution and the Bible.

More proof is in nature, in the complexity and creativness of it

Evolution is a proven engine of complexity and creativity. In fact I have done experiments myself and directly witnessed and proven that fact.

I am astounded at the people who presume to tell God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe. We have an amazing universe with awe inspiring laws of physics, and I am baffled at how some people can accept God making perfect and complete mechanisms to run His universe - nuclear fusion to power the sun and provide us light - the spinning earth orbiting the sun to divide day from night and create th3 seasons - the laws of chemistry to provide us food and create DNA and run all of our biochemical processes - yet they insist on telling God that He is FORBIDDEN to have chosen to use evolution to create the diversity of life on earth.

God can use optics as his chosen mechanism to create rainbows, but God cannot use evolution as his chosen mechanism to create His diversity of life?

I don't understand that.

One question I don't have an answer for is, how can scientists reliably speculate the state of this earth millions or billions of years ago with the evidence we have now, in this day and age?

For a moment, imagine a deceiving God. A God planting false evidence to mislead us.

If that were true, you couldn't know or trust anything. You could be a brain in a jar. Everything you see and hear could be a complete fiction. In fact all of your memories could be planted deceptions. The entire universe could have been created three days ago, and everything you think you know and believe could be an elaborate deliberate deception.

*If* one accepts the premise of a deliberately deceiving God, one cannot know or believe anything. Communication itself becomes meaningless. All rational thought and communication is null and void.

The first assumption for rational thought and rational communication MUST be to reject the notion that we are being deliberately deceived by a malicious lying God. If God wants to deceive us with by planting misleading evidence, then We Shall Be Misled.

Some people try to assert that the earth is around 6,000 years old. They assert that the Grand Canyon was quickly carved by a torrent of water after Noah's Flood. You don't need to be any sort of expert to see that is wrong. A huge fast gush of water over a short timespan will carve earth in a straight line. A small slow flow of water over millions of years will carve earth in a meandering snaking path. Aerial photos of the Grand Canyon show not only a winding path, it shows several sharp U-turns. Sharp U-turns that a short fast gush of water would instantly cut straight through. Geologists are not stupid. There are a THOUSAND things that demonstrate the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, my example is simply an obvious point that anyone and everyong can see is obviously true without a geology PhD.

There are only two possibilities. Either the Grand Canyon (and the Earth) really is extremely old, or God went to quite a bit of effort to plant a lot of evidence designed to deceive us into believing it is old. I reject the notion of a lying deceiving God, but in any case if God wants to deceive us then We Shall Be Deceived.

Forensic scientists can establish Beyond-Any-Reasonable-Doubt what happened at a crime scene, even if there was no witness. Scientists can determine a great many things about the past Beyond-Any-Reasonable-Doubt, even if there was no one there to witness it.

There is a chuck of the fossil

Re:Ironic curiosity

[Attila Dimedici]

That's easy. A visible, measured, violation of the laws of science.

In short. A miracle.

Nephilium

So, resurrection from the dead isn't good enough for you? Oh that's right all the witnesses aren't valid since they believed that such a miracle was a proof of God....so the only witness you would trust is one who didn't believe that the miracle indicated the existence of God, except that if they didn't believe that what they had witnessed was reason to believe in God why should you? So the only "proof" of a creator that you will accept is a violation of the laws of science (as you understand them) that you witness. Therefore, the only length of time that people have had to prove the existence of the creator is your lifetime.