Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

2011 Nobel Prize for Chemistry

by David Prentice
October 5, 2011

Awarded to Daniel Shechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. Quasicrystals are regular patterns of packed molecules, but patterns that never repeat themselves. The structure of molecules that Shechtman discovered in quasicrystals was considered impossible at the time of his discovery, 1982. Shechtman had to fight a fierce battle against established science to get his information published and accepted in the scientific community.

Daniel Shechtman’s discovery of the quasicrystal pattern was wrong according to accepted textbook science. But Shechtman concluded that the scientific community must be mistaken in its assumptions. When he told scientists about his discovery, he was faced with complete opposition, and some colleagues even resorted to ridicule. But he persevered, and the scientific community was eventually forced to reconsider their conception of the nature of solid matter.

The Nobel committee publishes more information for the public as well as detailed scientific information. The information for the public concludes with this:

An important lesson for science
Daniel Shechtman’s story is by no means unique. Over and over again in the history of science, researchers have been forced to do battle with established “truths”, which in hindsight have proven to be no more than mere assumptions. One of the fiercest critics of Daniel Shechtman and his quasicrystals was Linus Pauling, himself a Nobel Laureate on two occasions. This clearly shows that even our greatest scientists are not immune to getting stuck in convention. Keeping an open mind and daring to question established knowledge may in fact be a scientist’s most important character traits.


Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.

Comments

By: Claude | October 8, 2011 at 1:31 am

Scientific theories can collide… they thus advance. As long as they are based on empirical evidence, deduction, induction and analysis, and not based on some act of religious faith based on divine intervention, this is science in evolution.

If religion is mixed with science, it is no longer science. It does not belong in science class… it belongs in sunday school or Church. Just a reminder that creationism (or its variation: intelligent design) is not science, it is religion and does not belong in science class. (I somehow sense that is the point of FRC’s quote of the Nobel Committee, but it is not the same thing.)

Write a comment






Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.