We've all done it ? whiled away a few minutes idly typing our name into Google to see what the world thinks of us. But when retired chemistry professor Homer Jacobson tried it, he didn't like what he found. He stumbled on a handful of websites citing something he published more than half a century ago as 'proof' that life cannot spontaneously come into existence without the hand of a creator.

He was so dismayed that he wrote to American Scientist, the journal that published his 1955 paper "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" and asked to withdraw a couple of passages. The journal published the letter in which Jacobson disowns the phrases in question. The editor noted it was in the ?noblest tradition of science? to not let an error stand, though it is unusual to withdraw something that has been in the scientific record for 52 years.

Jacobson was embarrassed about two passages. In the first, he suggested that a range of factors ? such as the ability to extract energy from the environment, and a ready-made plan for translating biological blueprints into growth ? needed to be present simultaneously at the moment at which life first appeared. In the second, he speculated about the improbability of complex molecules such as amino acids forming in today's physical environment.

Jacobson now describes the first passage as "conjecture" and the second as "irrelevant", given that the physical conditions at the origin of life might have been very different from today's. Creationist blogs such as Darwinism refuted.com have nevertheless seized on his writings, remarking that he has shown how "impossible it is for life to have come about by chance".

Hideous use

In an interview with the New York Times, Jacobson described such misappropriation of his writings as "hideous". In his letter to American Scientist, he explained that he was taking the unusual step of asking for a belated withdrawal "because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by creationists".

Jacobson's writings might be speculation, they might be inaccurate, and they might cause him to wince on rereading them half a century later. But they certainly do not prove that life could not have evolved spontaneously, nor do they suggest that it was any more improbable than the existence of a conscious creator.

And that's why withdrawing parts of the article is not the right approach. No one should continue to stand by stuff that's wrong, but equally one shouldn't withdraw a statement because you're embarrassed at how it's being interpreted. Jacobson's article was written in good faith (if you'll pardon the pun), and it's not his fault that his logic was commandeered and stretched by people peddling creationist myth. Withdrawal should be reserved for research that is fraudulent or demonstrably wrong, not for idle speculations that got twisted to serve an irrational commentator's viewpoint.

I know how Jacobson feels. Links to many of my articles have been posted on creationist websites as 'evidence' of how science supports the Biblical story of creation. Over the years I seem to have become especially popular with a site called www.reasons.org, which has misappropriated a range of my news pieces, none of which were written with any discussion of creationism in mind.

For example, an article I wrote about the benefits of probiotic bacteria (Probiotic bacteria health boon) was hailed as an answer to the question "Why did God create bacteria?".

Another news story, raising the possibility that we might derive new adhesives from mussels (Superglue from the sea), was held up as evidence that the Almighty is much better than us at making glue. Nonsense ? my point was that natural selection is better than us at making glue.

And that's why Jacobson should relax and take solace. Although anyone is free, within reason, to interpret anything in the public domain as they see fit, it doesn't mean that we have to agree with them. If someone wilfully misinterprets something you write, the best course is to stand by your original article but publish an amendment pointing out its shortcomings ? that's how rational debate should proceed.