CREATOR HAS TO GO! according to articles in the Independent 4 March 2016, Guardian 7 March 2016, and comments on the PLoS ONE website, following the publication of an article about the biomechanics (how joints, tendons and muscles work) of the human hand. The Chinese authors wrote in their abstract: “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.” This resulted in design deniers in the science fraternity raising a furore with howls of outrage in the mainstream press and thePLoS ONE website calling for the paper to be retracted. These included accusations that the paper was shameful, horrifying, non-scientific and a joke; along with threats to resign from being editors or reviewers unless the paper was retracted; calls for the handling editor to be dismissed; and gratuitous insults on the status of PLoS ONE as a science journal. Behind the insults and threats, the main theme was that we cannot have a creator mentioned in scientific literature. In response to this furore the editors of PLoS ONE printed the following retraction: “Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a ‘Creator’, and about the overall rationale and findings of the study. Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication. The editors apologise to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.” As of today (9 March 2016) the paper is still on the PLoS ONE website, with the retraction notice above it and every page on the PDF version has been watermarked with the word “retracted” printed in large red capital letters. PLoS ONE is a Peer-reviewed, open-access online resource reporting scientific studies from all disciplines.
Links: PLoS ONE, Guardian, Independent
ED. COM. NOTE WELL: This paper is not actually about creation! In their conclusion the researchers wrote: “In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years”. In other words, the authors make it quite clear they believe the human hand evolved from an ape hand by the same evolutionary processes that the outraged atheists believe in. If the Chinese scientist authors actually meant a real Creator they are not talking about the God of the Bible, who did not use evolution or millions of year, no matter what Dennis Alexander, Francis Collins, Lane Craig, Hugh Ross or John Lennox say. Creation Research. |
|
.jpeg)