A paper speculating on the mechanisms responsible for the origin of life on Earth gets retracted, 52 years after it was published. Why? Because the author, a secular chemistry professor at Brooklyn College, is tired of creationists using it to support their arguments against evolution.
How sad. In his letter to American Scientist, where the paper was published in 1955, Jacobson writes that he discovered some errors in his paper:
Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends.
The backstory, from the New York Times:
The retraction came about when, on a whim, Dr. [Homer] 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?"
He found many entries relating to his work on compounds called polymers; on information theory, a branch of mathematics involving statistics and probability; and other subjects. But others were for creationist sites that have taken up his 1955 paper as scientific support for their views.
Darwinismrefuted.com, for example, says 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.
"Ouch," Dr. Jacobson said. "It was hideous."
...
So Dr. Jacobson's retraction is in "the noblest tradition of science," Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist...
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."
It certainly does.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Bravo to Dr. Jacobson!
This really does highlight the difference between the scientist and the dogmatic. Kudos to Dr. Jacobson.
Obviously this paper was the ultimate authority on it's subject or the creationists wouldn't be citing a paper from 1955....
Won't stop them from citing it still. I mean, heck, God retracted the Old Testiment by sending Jesus down and yet they still cherry pick it for why they hate gays, must enforce the ten commandments and all that wacky stuff. Obviously dogmatic types have no qualms about siting irrelevant and factually-challenged information and the frustrated banging of rational, intelligent minds against walls will continue. Though this is a very inspiring story of courage from a man who's legacy is at stake and is still willing to compromise it for truth. A trait you'd never see from the faith-based leadership who knows that perception is the key to their power over their frightened flock.