52 year old scientific paper retracted after creationist misrepresentation
October 29, 2007
A scientific paper published in 1955 has been retracted by its author, Dr. Homer Jacobson, when he discovered creationists were citing his work as “proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention”.
The paper, “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life” (American Scientist, Sigma Xi, 1955), focused on the properties of chemicals found on Earth during the cooling-down period known as Hadean Time. It contained assertions that several conditions would need to occur simultaneously in order for these organic molecules to form, described in the paper as “incredibly unlikely”.
After googling his name for reasons of “vanity”, Dr. Jacobson came across some of his work on polymers. When creationist websites referencing his 1955 paper started appearing, he described the search results as “hideous”.
This prompted Dr. Jacobson to look over his work, and in doing so he identified a few errors - not the least of which was his statement on simultaneously occurring conditions, a part which happened to be quoted by creationists. Jacobson commented “it was a dumb mistake, but nobody ever caught me on it”.
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
4 Responses to “52 year old scientific paper retracted after creationist misrepresentation”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
An (A)theist) by definition is the apposition to the belief in the existence of God?
In retrospect, is this belief not similar to the characteristic of one who is (A)moral?
Being without morals, or being against morality?
For the characteristics of the (A)theist, and the characteristics of one who is (A)moral is the ultimate contradiction in sound reason. To hold a belief apposed against something that does not exist, is a clear manifestation of a falsie in cognitive reasoning.
How can there be a sound belief (requiring logic) in something that is non-existent, and having no proof of its existence, while simultaneously at the same time (still holding to that logic,) believing oneself to be a cognitive sentient being, in full control of one’s own facilities is the true definition of illogic?
To quote a well know figure ‘That is illogical’
Just a thought!
Rev. Joseph G Steadman
Joseph
Are you for real??
Your reply has no reference to the fact that a reputable scientist exposed creationists for what they are: quacks. He refused to go along with lies and and polemics.
This is what Dr Jacobson says about his paper:
Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors. One related to what he called a “conjecture” about whether amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein and a crucial component of living things, could form naturally.
“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.
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.”
The Creationists did not even bother to check the paper against current work. But since their agenda is to spread lies, it’s not surprise.
~ Luci
Joseph,
The “A-” prefix means “lacking”. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of theism. It is the Christian belief system that contends Atheism is synonymous with Anti-theism. “Anti-”, of course, means “Against” or “Opposing” - Atheists have no more against God than they do the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Sagan’s Dragon.
Atheists do not reject “God” - that would be paradoxical. Atheists reject the god-concepts presented by various brands of theism.
Polynomially,
Rev. RivalArrival, OCP
Rev. Steadman, I fail to see how your comments on atheism and morality are relevant to the article.
However, they’ve already been adressed by Luci and Rival (and countless other places on the net) so I’ll leave you with but one statement.
I’ve noticed your website mentions that America’s founding fathers explicitly intended it to be a christian nation, which you support with a number of quotes, claiming “most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks”.
You surely must either know this is false, in which case you’re deliberately spreading lies (is that moral?) or you choose ignorance. I’m interested in hearing neither.