Physics 1918
PLANCK, MAX KARL ERNST LUDWIG, Germany
Physics 1929
DE BROGLIE, Prince LOUIS-VICTOR, France
Physics 1932
HEISENBERG, WERNER, Germany
Physics 1933
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN, Austria, and
DIRAC, PAUL ADRIEN MAURICE, Great Britain.
There are more Nobel laureates whose prize was directly connected with the
further understanding of quantum mechanics as it applies to different
physical problems.
Therefore, do not come to me with this nonsense that life was created in the
lab and none of the discoverers got a Nobel Prize because they were too many
to recognize.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin O'Brien <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; Pim van Meurs
<entheta@eskimo.com>; Howard J. Van Till <110661.1365@compuserve.com>; ASA
Listserve <asa@calvin.edu>; Evolution Listserve <evolution@calvin.edu>;
mrlab@ix.netcom.com <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>>How else can we recompense those who would have performed the greatest
>>experiment ever?
>>
>
>No one ever won a Nobel Prize for "discovering" that enzymes were catalysts
>either, yet this concept is so basic and fundamentally important to
>biochemistry that if it were ever proven to be false, the whole of modern
>biochemistry would collapse and we would have to start from scratch. There
>are many such concepts in science for which no one ever won a Nobel Prize,
>because the concept was not proven by a single person or group of persons
>doing a single critical experiment, but was proven by a great deal of
>research done over a span of time. These concepts are accepted by
concensus
>based on this research, and Nobel Prizes are not awarded for reaching a
>concensus.
>
>The realization that life has been made in the lab is a concensus based on
a
>large amount of research that stretches back at least four decades. Yet
>even as early as 1970 biochemists like Lehninger had recognized that life
in
>the form of primitive cells that could metabolize and reproduce, even
>evolve, had been made in the lab from simpler chemicals. The modern
>concensus is that this is still true.
>
>If you want to learn more, then stop being so stubbornly ignorant and read
>the scientific literature.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
>