login/register

Snip!t from collection of Alan Dix

see all channels for Alan Dix

Snip
summary

A group of Chinese scientists published their research i... peer-reviewed, open-source journal on January 5. The stu... paper that looked at the biomechanics of the human hand....
One of the sentences read: “Hand coordination should i ...
The word’

Why One Published Paper Is Causing The Scientific Community To Freak Out | IFLScience
http://www.iflscience.com/...ying-human-hand-was-designed-creator-causes-outrage

Categories

/Channels/research methods

[ go to category ]

For Snip

loading snip actions ...

For Page

loading url actions ...

A group of Chinese scientists published their research in the peer-reviewed, open-source journal on January 5. The study was a scientific paper that looked at the biomechanics of the human hand. However, the paper mentioned “the Creator” in the paper’s abstract and then twice in the study.

One of the sentences read: “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.”

The word’s association with creationism and intelligent design has spurred a stream of negative comments on the PLOS ONE article, as well as on Twitter, with many people demanding that the “shameful” and “unacceptable” paper be redacted or removed.

HTML

<p>A group of Chinese scientists published their research in the peer-reviewed, open-source journal on January 5. <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193">The study</a> was a scientific paper that looked at the biomechanics of the human hand. However, the paper mentioned &#x201c;the Creator&#x201d; in the paper&#x2019;s abstract and then twice in the study.</p> <p>One of the sentences read: &#x201c;Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator&#x2019;s invention.&#x201d;</p> <p>The word&#x2019;s association with&nbsp;creationism and intelligent design has spurred a stream of <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comments?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193">negative comments</a> on&nbsp;the PLOS ONE article, as well as on&nbsp;Twitter,&nbsp;with many people demanding that the &#x201c;shameful&#x201d; and &#x201c;unacceptable&#x201d; paper be redacted or removed.</p>