From: Barry Desborough [mailto:barry.desborough@*]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:41 AMTo: Caleb Colley
Subject: Re. Homer Jacobson
Messieurs/Mesdames
It has been brought to my attention via a discussion on this website, http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2053227#poststop, that the words of the retired chemist Homer Jacobson are featured on your website at page http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/138. (Now moved to
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=164 - edited 1st Sept 2015)
As you are no doubt aware, Mr Jacobson has retracted sections of his paper and he points out that subsequent developments have shown his 1955 conjectures to be incorrect.
We have been handed down the commandment not to bear false witness. What does this mean? Well a minimal, ‘lawyerly’ interpretation - that it only means that we should not knowingly express falsehoods - makes a mockery of the commandment. Rather, we must take it that we bear a responsibility not to mislead. We must not be negligent in trying to ensure that we do not mislead, even inadvertently. Such neglect can only reflect badly back one and ultimately damage one’s faith.
It is now clear that to leave your webpage as it is would cause readers to be misled. The duty now falls to you to correct your page and inform readers of the situation following Mr Jacobson’s own corrections.
Yours faithfully
Barry Desborough
From: Kyle Butt [mailto:Kyle@apologeticspress.org]
Sent: lundi 5 novembre 2007 16:01
To: barry.desborough@*
Subject: RE: Feedback Re: Homer Jacobson
Hello Barry,
Thank you for writing. We appreciate you bringing it to our attention that Mr. Jacobson may have retracted sections of his paper. I checked the quote on our site and could not imagine what part of the quote we have posted would have been retracted. If you will send us the evidence that he retracted the sentiments in our quotes, we will certainly be glad to look into adjusting our site. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
From: Barry Desborough [mailto:barry.desborough@*]
Sent: mardi 6 novembre 2007 12:51
To: 'Kyle Butt'
Subject: RE: Feedback Re: Homer Jacobson
Hello Kyle
Thank you for this response. I am most encouraged by it, expressing, as it does, your concern that your site does not contain anything which is likely to mislead your readers. Here is the evidence you asked for:-
Your page http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/138 includes the following, under the subtitle, CELLULAR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMAN MALES AND FEMALES
How does the randomness concept associated with evolution explain these extremely complex cellular characteristics, or the differences seen among species? Homer Jacobson addressed just such problems when he wrote:
“Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention” (1955, 43:12, emp. added).
[quote]How does the randomness concept associated with evolution explain these extremely complex cellular characteristics, or the differences seen among species? Homer Jacobson addressed just such problems when he wrote:
“Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention” (1955, 43:12, emp. added).
[/quote]
Here is Mr Jacobson’s letter to American Scientist. I am surprised that you were unable to find it.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234 (Edit 1st Sept 2015. This has now been moved to
Update. Jacobson's letter has been moved to http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2007/11/no-time-like-the-present )
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[quote]To the Editors:
In January 1955, American Scientist published my article, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43, No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages, as follows:
On page 121: "Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [of life's birth]."
On page 125: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."
I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture, unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing structures.
The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard conditions, with no external source of energy. Such changes cannot spontaneously take place. Molecules of increased complexity have been found, however, when necessary components are available, with the aid of ambient energy from natural or experimental systems, e.g. electrical discharges, substantial temperature gradients or contiguous compounds or elements whose chemical reactions produce free energy. All of these could have existed under early Earth conditions, and thus this passage is completely inapplicable.
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.
Homer Jacobson
Brooklyn College
The City University of New York
[/quote]
You will note that in his letter, Mr Jacobson specifically retracts the first sentence you quoted.
Another problem with your use of this quote is that it is placed in the context of a discussion of the evolution of sex. Mr Jacobson’s paper was clearly concerned with the origins of life, not with its subsequent evolution. Readers may well be misled by the context in which you placed the quote. Readers may also take a further false impression from the sentence, “This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance, and has often been ascribed to divine intervention” due to its general science-sceptical context. They may assume that Mr Jacobson himself ascribes the origin of life to an exceptional form of divine intervention himself, whereas clearly, he does not.
Expert witnesses are useful in trials where the aim is to arrive at the truth. This is why, in a courtroom, defence and prosecution have the right to examine an expert witness – to ensure that the meaning, intent and implications of their testimony are clear. We are not in a court of law, but I’m sure you will agree that it is in all our interests to ensure that Mr Jacobson’s ‘expert testimony’ is handled with honesty and integrity.
Once again, thank you for your response. If you feel I could be of service in reviewing other material on your site, I would be delighted to assist you.
Yours sincerely
Barry Desborough
[/quote]
[quote]
From: Barry Desborough [mailto:barry.desborough@*]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:32 AM
To: Kyle Butt
Subject: FW: Feedback Re: Homer Jacobson
Hello Kyle,
Just a repeat of a mail I sent you a short while ago, in case you missed it.
Regards
Barry Desborough
-----Original Message-----<snipped>
From: Kyle Butt [mailto:Kyle@apologeticspress.org]
Sent: mardi 13 novembre 2007 16:28
To: Barry Desborough
Subject: RE: Feedback Re: Homer Jacobson
Hello Barry,
Thanks for emailing. I have been out of town all week and will be very busy this week. I hope to have this resolved in two weeks. Thanks.
Kyle Butt
Since then, up to the time of this edit on the 1st September 2015, *Crickets*
The only change is that this example of abject dishonesty by Apologetics Press has been moved to the URL
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=164
No comments:
Post a Comment