Re: Does science `cover-up'? The case of Walther Loeb (was Why did progress fail?, etc)

From: Brian D Harper (
Date: Mon Jan 10 2000 - 21:52:29 EST

  • Next message: Chris Cogan: "An Alternative to Dishonesty as the Cause of Persistent Misrepresentation of Ideas and Arguments"

    At 06:07 AM 1/11/00 +0800, Steve wrote:

    Thanks for your comments.

    About Loeb:

    Miller was not himself the party guilty of mistranslation. He
    cites two authorities, *both* of which had the mis-translation.
    The most authoritative was also the first, published in 1913.
    The second authority Miller cites was published in 1951. Most
    likely this source just copied the translation error from the
    1913 source. Anyway, I don't think one can really fault Miller
    for not reading the original when a translation was available
    from a reputable authority.

    Also, Yockey has published his conclusions now in a reputable

    H. P. Yockey, 1997. "Walther Lob, Stanley L. Miller and
    Prebiotic 'Building Blocks' in the Silent Electrical
    Discharge," <Perspectives in Biology and Medicine>,

    >On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 19:51:07 -0800, Brian D Harper wrote:
    >BH>Let me take a slight detour here. One often hears claims about how
    >>there is some sort of "cover up" of difficulties with the origin
    >>of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the above
    >>we have two examples where Stanley Miller performed experiments
    >>which could potentially severely undermine the current theories
    >>on the origin of life. These two examples are (1) the experiment
    >>Steve refers to above and (2) experiments on the slightly reducing/
    >>neutral environments which experts now generally agree comprised
    >>the Earth's early atmosphere. These second set of experiments I
    >>refer to show at least a two order of magnitude decrease in yields
    >>as well as a significant decrease in variety of amino acids produced.
    >>We often hear these results reported by creationists and might get
    >>the idea that they were somehow involved in the work. Actually, they
    >>would never even know about it if Miller hadn't published the
    >>results. This I believe shows science working the way its supposed
    >>to work.
    >I agree with Brian that the competing schools do expose difficulties with
    >the opposition's theories and creationist's benefit from this.
    >But note that *only* materialistic-naturalistic theories are allowed to be
    >discussed. So there is a "cover up" of a sort which tries to suppress
    >discussion of Intelligent Design or Creationist theories.

    Walter Bradley has attended (and presented papers) at several OOL
    meetings. He also has at least one paper published in the principal
    journal for OOL research. In addition, I have seen several books
    and papers which reference Bradley and Thaxton's book. There is
    no mention of it being a "creationist" book.

    Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
    Associate Professor | something and want to
    Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
    The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
                                 | -- Morrowitz

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 10 2000 - 18:49:55 EST