Posted by Cockney Robin | 52 years after its publication, a former chemistry professor has retracted a 1955 scientific paper to prevent its misuse by creationists.(NYT) At the age of 84, Dr Homer Jacobson discovered in an idle moment's google search that he has attained a sort of fame he neither sought nor could accept: his paper, 'Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life' has become a popular resource for creationists who want to prove that life could not have begun on earth without divine intervention.(NYT)
Jacobson described the revelation as 'hideous.' One publication, "Darwinismrefuted.com, for example, says that Dr. Jacobson’s paper “undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident.” Another creationist site, Evolution-facts.org, says his findings mean that “within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing water,” an impossible feat without a supernatural hand."(NYT) (He also, and incidentally, discovered a number of substantive problems which fueled his desire to retract it.) While he has no objection to religion, he objects to being made the enabler of 'malignant' denunciations of Darwin.(NYT)
"He wrote in his retraction letter, “I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements.”" According to the article, it isn't unusual for scientists who discover errors in their work to retract them. "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." (NYT) Whereas, of course, the retraction of his letter will have no effect on the faith of the creationists who no longer have the benefit of the support of his hypothesis. Those who make a Science of their religion are not bound by the strictures which apply to scientific research. If it turns out to be inapplicable, they can chuck it without by doing so making the slightest dent in the carapace of their faith.
The science blog, Pharyngula, cites the retraction as an instance of "scholarly integrity," and as an instance of yet another way---according to him---science is superior to religion. "Science has an integrity and dedication to the honest evaluation of the evidence that religion lacks." (NYT)
One commenter who posted on the subject wrote, "You mean science can be wrong? Or that ideas can change over time? That's terribly disturbing. I will, along with Stephen Colbert, wait until "all the science is in" before I hitch my wagon to it."(NYT)
And after all it's capital S- Science's own fault that it has to wait till all the evidence concerning Itself is in. In the meantime, as biologist PZ Meyers (of Pharyngula) pointed out, "[T]his paper will continue to get cited and mangled and misused." Which---as noted--- is one of the many advantages that religion has over science.
For other bloggers' reactions, see Memeorandum
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS
British
Nobel Laureates: Stripping the Gilt off Gore's Win? (Updated)
Elderly
Nobel Laureate Demonstrates Selective Nature of Intelligence.
More
on Gore and Media Memes: Did "A Gaggle of Journalists" Misreport the
"9 Errors" Case?
A
Response to the Critics Acid Raining on Gore's Parade (UPDATED)
Delightfully
Fast
A
New and Different Alarming Threat from Climate Change
Heated
Debate
All the Weird Science My Tax Dollars Can Buy (with bonus Jon Stewart Footage!)
LINKED
Comments