Scientific Journal Retracts Paper Referencing Human Hand’s ‘Design by Creator’

A scientific journal caved in to pressure from evolutionists and retracted an article about the human hand that mentions “the Creator” three times.

On January 5, the journal “PLOS ONE” published a peer-reviewed article titled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living.” The article, which was written by a team of Chinese and American scientists, explores the complex design and coordinated movements of the human hand.

“The human hand is an amazing instrument that can perform a multitude of functions,” the scientists wrote, later explaining that hand movements “are enabled by a highly complex structure, with 19 articulations, 31 muscles and more than 25 degrees of freedom.”

However, the scientists’ paper included something not frequently found in peer-reviewed scientific journals: multiple references to “the Creator.”

“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,” the scientists wrote in their paper’s abstract.

“[H]and coordination affords humans the ability to flexibly and comfortably control the complex structure to perform numerous tasks,” they later explained. “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.”

The scientists made one final mention to the Creator in their paper’s final paragraph.

  • Connect with Christian News

“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,” they stated.

Although the paper was published in early January, it wasn’t until last week that evolutionists noticed the references to the Creator and publicly called for the paper’s retraction.

“It’s not acceptable to publish an article like this to be full of assertions about a ‘creator,’ especially since it does nothing to back up this claim at all, and just highlights a poor understanding of evolution by the authors, and a very sloppy job done by both the reviewers and the editor,” one commenter wrote on the “PLOS ONE” website. “To salvage the reputation of this journal, this article should be retracted, and the future services of the reviewers and editor declined.”

Others referred to “PLOS ONE” as an “absolute joke of a journal” for publishing the paper. In response, the journal blamed inadequate peer review for the controversial Creator references, apologized for the “errors” in the paper, and officially retracted the article on Friday.

“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,” a statement on the “PLOS ONE” website said. “… the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

As “PLOS ONE” scrambled to retract and denounce the scientists’ mentions of the Creator, others noted the antagonism toward the passing references to God. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association suggested in an online blog post that scientific journals today are influenced by “evolutionary propaganda.”

“The complexity of everything in the universe, from the tiniest subatomic particle to the furthest galaxy, proclaims loudly and unmistakably that all of it is the work of a powerful, intelligent and design-oriented Creator,” Fischer wrote. “As the Scriptures say, ‘What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made’ (Romans 1:19-20).”

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Kathy

    Even though I am a creationist, I do understand the need to report the measurable observations in a scientific journal…but then, in order to be fair, any reference to “millions of years” or anything referencing evolution needs to be deleted also. It has to be consistent.

    • John N

      So you want to throw away 99.99% of all scientific articles regarding biology, geology, cosmology , chemistry, physics and archaeology, Kathy?

      Well, scientific journals will be a lot easier to read after that. Which would surely bring them to the level of the average creationist.

      • Kathy

        Yes – for articles that state theories as facts… You start a scientific investigation with a theory or hypothesis. Then you conduct experiments and observe facts. It isn’t even ethical for a peer-reviewed article or investigation to present something as fact that is merely a theory! Evolution is considered a theory.

        • Original Chum

          Since you don’t know the difference:
          A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

          It’s not our fault you haven’t bothered to read any of the experiments and observations. If you don’t like it you can go try and disprove it using the same methods the rest of the scientific community use.

          • KeithFromCanada

            The fact is that both ‘Intelligent Design’ (*including* six-day creation, which is just a subset of it) and ‘Evolution’ are still theories, as there *can* be no incontrovertible proof that either is the reality of how life on this planet reached its current state, without time travel being invented. To declare outright that either *IS* the way it happened is intellectually dishonest. If you want to say that ‘the majority of evidence seems to indicate…’ or ‘I believe’ or whatnot, then fine; you are expressing your opinion, and nobody should have a problem with that, as long as you are tolerant of those who question your position from a rational, reasoned point of view. *Blind faith* (i.e. “I’ve made up my mind; stop trying to confuse me with facts!”), on the other hand, should be shouted down by *both* sides, as it helps neither and harms both.

            Heck, with more and more evidence of just how *INSANELY* complex and interconnected biology truly is, I’m leaning more and more to ‘Curiosity-Driven Guided Evolution’. (e.g. No evolution of genetic transfer itself in 3.5b years? No sign of any other method of gene (or w/e) transference? Somehow the laws and properties of the universe, solidifying in the first 1e-43 seconds, were *accidentally* precise enough that I’m able to sit here, typing this out? MINDBLOWING!)

    • Weed should be legal you fool

      Hate to break it to you but “Creation” is just the idiots way to explain how the world works.

  • bowie1

    Still, I have heard references to creation in science programs that were not creationist. It may have even been by Canadian scientists David Suzuki who does not believe in a Creator.

  • Reason2012

    For professing Christians that are fooled into believing fish to mankind evolution is science, yet alone true, and pretend fish to mankind evolutionists are really just reporting science, take note of the hate they have of any reference to God having anything to do with anything. Fish to mankind is nothing less than an anti-science attack on the truth of God, and their behavior here shows it yet again.

  • Kristin Lieb

    ” and just highlights a poor understanding of evolution by the authors, ” Uhmmm.. sounds to me like the original authors knew exactly all about your THEORY of evolution..

    • Elie Challita

      Nope, they pretty said that it was a translation error from Chinese to English

  • gizmo23

    Just because something is peer reviewed doesn’t make it valid. Squirrels reading research from another squirrel is peer review

    • Jeff Jankowiak

      You would know.

      • gizmo23

        Insults always prove your point and show great respect and knowledge

  • BarkingDawg

    PLOS One is a pay to publish “journal.” The only peer review they do is to see if the check cleared.

    • Balerion

      The science world’s equivalent of a vanity press. Respectable scientists would not take something published in such a “journal” at all seriously.

      On another note, a few years ago I had an exchange with a creationist who had a “doctorate” from an unaccredited diploma mills who demanded that he be addressed as “Dr.” (and in a rather condescending tone to boot). I made it clear that I would never address him as such and that to actually call him “Dr.” would be an insult to anyone who had to do actual work in order to earn their doctorate. (Funny thing is, those holding legitimate PhD’s from accredited universities are usually a lot less sticky about being addressed as “Dr”.)

  • Kettle Meatpot

    Scientists determine human hand to be the design of a creator, yet fail to offer any evidence establishing the existence of said ethereal designer, other than the self evident and irrefutable fact that the human hand is complex, and it exists?