Librado Romero/The New York Times
Homer Jacobson, unhappy that creationists had cited his work.
Posted on 10/25/2007 6:44:46 PM PDT by neverdem
I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with what the data points to so you hide the data.
Imagine how God feels when scientists cite his work and don't even give Him credit!
Either way, they are both beliefs! Beliefs require faith.
Evolutionism is a religion. You have to believe/have faith in an unproveable theory.
Intelligent Design makes Chistians look stupid.
No, science corrects it's mistakes.
Dogma and belief can't do that.
You wouldn't find too many conservatives there then (or now even).
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
This “scientist” never doubted the veracity of his paper since 1955, and because it’s cited as evidence FOR creationism, it’s retracted in the name of “science correcting it’s mistakes”
“Dogma” is the notion of us evolving from goo.
“Dogma” is the notion that a finite being (you) is 100% certain that God does not exist.
“Belief” is the proposition that complex organisms that make a F-22 Raptor look like Legos could have assembled from “primordial soup”
It takes more “belief” to be an atheist/evolutionist, frankly.
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
In the good old days, when scientists believed the bible, they used to *cure diseases*. Nowadays, they just help you live with it.
What does retracting a paper because others quote it make a scientist look like?
Exactly why evolution can’t be considered science. Evidence running counter to your dogma being pointed out? Why, just sweep it under the rug! “It never existed, you silly creationist wacko!”
The better reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you found a flaw in your own argument, or some other defect in the paper (e.g. new evidence that contradicted old assumptions).
The worst reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you didn’t like the ideological implications that were inferred by honest work.
It makes him look foolish, in my opinion.
If he's bothered or dismayed by being quoted by the Intelligent Design crowd then better to just ignore them.
But instead, he lends them credibility by this lame gesture, 52 years later, that gets written up in the New York Times.
“No, science corrects it’s mistakes.”
So what was his mistake? That he published data that pointed to something he didn’t believe in?
“Dogma and belief can’t do that.”
Totally agree, this is a perfect example that dogma forces people to close their eyes to reality. So much so that they will retract data; not because its wrong but because it doesn’t support their belief.
I have no arguments with your answer.
When your belief structure in science is right or wrong based on what is built on it, it is dogma to remove it. The thesis should stand on its own feet, and not care what others build with it.
Modern science is dogma, science a hundred years ago was far more scientific. They built their findings into where they did not know. Now they build only where it fits what they "know". One cannot find new ground if one is only going to look where one knows.
But then, flat earthers have controlled science for a long time and called round earthers heritics. They still do. True scientists all know the earth is billions of years old, despite the evidence that debunks it. All those intelegent designers are just thinking out of the nice safe box and are heritics.
You might be interested in this one.
“The worst reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you didn’t like the ideological implications that were inferred by honest work.”
I wonder if any science papers get yanked because some whacked-out skinhead web site uses them as proof of race supremacy?
Only if you don’t understand it!
Dogma and belief can't do that.
Ohhhhh. Hit a nerve with this one, to judge by the replies!
Creationists thought they had a magic bullet, but the author retracted his paper and they are left holding the bag!
What a joke! Now, creationists will have to abandon this paper and catch up with 50+ more years of research!
Oh, no! What'll we do now?
Research? But that's hard work! (Let's go the mall instead.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.