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."'"
I hope someone mods the parent up because I can identify with his statement. I'm someone who would self-identify as a Christian, but someone whom has serious concerns with most of the theories (which last time I checked are `theories` not absolute dogma), presented by both sides of the table. I definately belive in microevoultion (differentiation in specices), but recognize that there is more data than the average BIO101 professor would like to content regarding data that `does not fit` the macroevolutionary model most are fighting for or against. (e.g. irreducable complexity, cataclysmic geological events, etc.)
By education, I am a student of Sociology and it is so frustrating to me that so many sciences (such as the social sciences) there is an implicit understanding of the world based entirely on evolutionary biology. For example, there are a number of Sociological precepts that are born assuming the immutibility of evolutionary biology. Unfortunately, since these researchers aren't evolutionary biologist, they don't get presented with data that would impact `higher order` theories from which theirs implicity or explicity depents upon.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when sciences are so unwilling to debate, content with theories, hypothesis and even data that challenge the status quo. I know this is a debate that is often veiled by religion, but... what about AIDS/HIV, in that there is a large body of evidence (data) and conflicting theory (that HIV is not the cause of what we call AIDS,www.aliveandwell.com) which is almost unheard of in mainstream society where the masses should be making informed decisions regarding their health. I'm not saying I'm totally convinced by this theory but we live in a time when an alarming number of competing scientific theories (in particular with `central theories`) are relegated to the fringes rather than engaged with.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
It's a double-standard. Evolutionists object (rightly) when creationists use tenuous logic and pseudo-science to poke holes in their science, but have no objection to making stuff out of thin air (or, in this case, grabbing some random Charismatic's pet "theory" on how old the earth is) to poke holes in Christian theology.
It is long past the time for us to pretend to have expertise in each other's fields of interest. I don't know jack about evolutionary theory, and the GP doesn't know jack about the Bible. I also don't think either of us cares enough to fix that.
If I gave you two books which contradict each other:
Book 1, I tell you was written 150 years ago and since it's publishing, has been generally accepted as fact by millions of people.
Book 2, I tell you was written 2000 years ago and since it's publishing has been generally accepted as fact by billions of people.
Which could be assumed to be true?
Book 1 is a "The Origin of Species".
Book 2 is the Christian Bible.
Either way, I have two books in front of me, neither of which _I_ personally can prove as fact, so I'm taking somebody's word for it that it's true. Who do I believe?
No, it means he made ASSUMPTIVE errors. And the conclusion he reached wasn't according to Scientific Doctrine. So he changed his assumptions, the proper conclusion was reached and all is well in the Scientific Community, since doctrine is more important than anything else.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
the point is that you can't make blanket statements about how dogmatic all people of faith or all people of science are. The article does that. And I challenge the idea that people of faith are more dogmatic than people of science.
Personally I don't buy Darwin's theory because it clearly fails to account to the missing links. But that doesn't mean I believe in the genesis story given in the bible. To me the real and fascinating question is who created us? Just look at what we, humans, have achieved in genetics! Well then, can't we imagine beings more evolved than us who could have engineered humanity or at least played a role in its evolution? That would be a more plausible explanation for what we observe in many fields, including archeology and the study of ancient texts and artifacts.
Oh I see, I can already hear some people saying 'another lunatic believing in ETs'.
Well, I'm no more lunatic than these people who first considered the possibility of the earth being round and not flat. I don't really know the story of humanity's origin. But in making an educated guess about it I'm trying real hard not to be blinded by limiting beliefs and conditioning.
Have a look at these articles, it may help:
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.1.html
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/darwinism.2.html
(And yes, that one _was_ both a flame and flamebait).
As noted elsewhere you are a self-professed YEC (young earth creationist, the most irrational and thick skulled branch of an irrational religion), reducing you from someone to debate with to something to poke at and be amused by as your deliberate blindness to reality means working with you to find truth and freedom are a waste of effort.
(At least online. In real life your human rights remain unchanged).
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
Shh... Don't let the evolutionist sanctum know I theorized anything against their precious theory. It looks like he retracted it with no other reason that it conflicted with evolution. What kind of science is that!!!!? This is rule by dogma, folks.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?