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."'"
isn't that a bad example, to scientific method as such? If he believe that what he said/published was true, should he worry about the repurcations, as a scientist? His job it to tell what he knows and what he can prove. I am not questioning his intention, but I don't think 'intelligent design' guys will need to go for the 'correct interpretation' of any theory.
Why yes, faith in a universe that operates by a consistent and knowable set of rules, rather than the whims of an unknowable deity does fill me with great joy and peace.