It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There's been something of an outcry, therefore, since scientific journal PLOS One published a paper called "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living."
This doesn't seem like a title that would engender controversy.
However, within the study is wording that some found disturbing. For example, in discussing the very clever way in which muscles work with human hand movements, the paper attributes this to "the proper design of the Creator."
This isn't isolated phraseology. Later, the paper talks about how the fine coordination of the human hand "should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention."
originally posted by: EequalsMC2
Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: EequalsMC2
Not surprising... Seems to be getting easier and easier to just pay for your journal to be published. "Peer Reviewed" has completely lost all significant meaning.
Also, in answer to PhotonEffect too.
The paper WAS peer reviewed and editorially reviewed prior to publication.
Here's the PLOS One web page on the Peer Review process.
Peer review
The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut
It's not about being PC or not.
It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).
Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.
originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: TerryDon79
Since you seem to be an expert, of what sort of quality is the article in question and the research covered in it beyond mention of this "Creator"? Paint me curious.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut
It's not about being PC or not.
It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).
Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.
The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.
Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut
It's not about being PC or not.
It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).
Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.
The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.
Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.
The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.
There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.
The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.
There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut
It's not about being PC or not.
It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).
Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.
The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.
Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.
The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.
There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.
The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.
There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.
If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?
What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
Didn't the people who did the study come out and say there was a misunderstanding? The people who wrote it were Chinese iirc and said they used the word creator wrong due to a mistranslation.
From the authors' perspective, they say it's simply a case of English not being their first language, as lead author Ming-Jin Liu explained in the paper's comments section:
"Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realised that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks."
"the proper design of the Creator."
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: chr0naut
It's not about being PC or not.
It's about coming to a conclusion based on evidence (that's what papers are).
Since there is no evidence of god then the paper is not based on any known evidence.
The authors of the paper, the peer reviewers and the editorial staff seem to have accepted that this was such evidence.
Of course, if you reject the evidence as evidence, there is obviously no evidence.
The authors of the paper are the people that wrote it.
There is NO mention of it being peer reviewed.
The editorial staff can be as few as 1 person.
There is no proof for or against a creator. Science doesn't go there as it's a subject you can't prove right or wrong.
If the paper had spoken of the intricacies of the hand's mechanics as arising from the process of evolution, would you have accepted it?
What observed science do you have of the evolutionary processes specifically giving rise to the complex mechanics of the human hand? Despite having little actual hard science, neither you nor I would nay say the role of evolutionary development. We both take that component on faith, from what we know of science, it is reasonable to do so.
But science isn't about faith.
You can go out tomorrow and test anything that is claimed to be a scientific theory. If you find something wrong with it, have proof and the results can be repeated, then you can change that theory.