Scientific paper which says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator' sparks controversy

[n2doc]

A recent scientific paper on the movement of the human hand has faced strong criticism for referring to a 'Creator' throughout.

The paper, titled: 'Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living' was written by a team of four researchers, three from Huazhong University in China, and one from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.

Published in the PLOS ONE journal, the fairly conventional study looked at the mechanics of how we grasp things, and involved the measurement of the hand movements of 30 participants.

However, members of the scientific community have demanded the paper be retracted, for its several perceived references to the pseudoscientific theory of intelligent design and a possibly divine 'Creator'.

In the opening sentences of the study, it claims the link between muscles and hand movements is the product of "proper design by the Creator."

more

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

[Orrex]

1. Idiocy abounds in every profession.

Even among those nominally expected to know better.

[still_one]

2. Update: The journal has now announced the paper will be retracted.

"Commenting on the website, it wrote: “The PLOS ONE editors have followed up on the concerns raised about this publication. We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.”

“In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

The difference here is that scientific articles are peer reviewed, and unless they can be substantiated they are called out.

Another example was when NASA tried to push that a new arsenic based life form was discovered, to try and justify that life "not as we know it", could have originated elsewhere in 2010.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/journal-retreats-from-controversial-arsenic-paper/2012/07/08/gJQAFQb7WW_story.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120709-arsenic-space-nasa-science-felisa-wolfe-simon/

http://retractionwatch.com/2012/07/09/despite-refutation-science-arsenic-life-paper-deserves-retraction-scientist-argues/

[callous taoboy]

3. Why in hell was it published in the first place?

Was the peer review that sloppy, or have the fundamentalists infiltrated scientific journal editorial boards?

[still_one]

5. Yes it was sloppy, and it isn't the first time that has happened. I gave a different example where

sloppy peer review allowed something to pass through that never should have.

In the case I gave it was because of an inherent bias that they were hoping to find a new life form.

In this particular OP it was to exert a religious and political slant bias, not based on a rigorous scientific proof or verification.

While there is no doubt that some "fundamentalists" have infiltrated some of the community, as you stated, it is an extremely small segment of the scientific community. The earth being 5000 years old, denial of global warming, and denial of evolution are three examples of that nonsense.

However, while the vast majority may not always be right, for instance when the majority of the scientific community at the time did not believe that bacteria was a causation of disease or infection, through scientific experimentation and proof, with the help of the discovery of the microscope, the evidence could not be refuted.

Unless it is able to withstand reproducibility, and rigorous experimentation and proof, it will not stand the test of time.

[TlalocW]

4. Wikipedia describes PLOS ONE

As a "pay-to-publish" online scientific journal whose purpose is to get away from traditional peer-reviewed papers, the process of which tends to favor subjects that are perceived to be more, "important." PLOS ONE is supposed to make sure the experiment was rigorously performed, and the data analyses done correctly and then leave it to the scientific community at large to determine importance.

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised this is the first time I've heard of creationists trying to use it to get their stuff published if it's "pay-to-publish," since that community had to go and create their own "scientific" journals so leading creationists can claim they've been published in the science journals. This would have been a feather in their cap since it's a level or two up.

TlalocW

[MisterP]

6. I've been reading Gene Wolfe so I'm in a REALLY weird place on creators right now