The Hand: Created By God?

[oxmixmudd]

The odd thing is that there is an uproar about translation to the word 'Creator' from a paper presented by, if not mistaken, Chinese scientists.

It doesn't seem likely that Chinese scientists would be making a reference to God. Is this bigotry and bias against Chinese because English isn't their first language? You have to write in perfect PLOS ONE English to be published. Unusual translations disqualify the scientists.

The whole thing is disturbing. Since they apparently can't be forgiven the mistake, the implication is that to mention God in a scientific paper is so offensive that even by accident it can't be overlooked.

Really? What is the difference between that kind of a mentality and religious dogma? It is the same sort of core, intolerant mentality. Is bigotry and intolerance ok if it supports your point of view???

It reminds me a bit of some 'racial sensitization' training that was going around 10 or 15 years ago. The fellow conducting the sessions was of the opinion that one can only be racist/prejudiced if they're in the majority. The same thought process, when expressed by a minority member towards a majority member, was not racism.

Idiocy.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

The odd thing is that there is an uproar about translation to the word 'Creator' from a paper presented by, if not mistaken, Chinese scientists.

It doesn't seem likely that Chinese scientists would be making a reference to God. Is this bigotry and bias against Chinese because English isn't their first language? You have to write in perfect PLOS ONE English to be published. Unusual translations disqualify the scientists.

It is not necessary for 'perfect PLOS ONE English, but reasonable translation. IT is primarily the fault of PLOS ONE editors. I know enough Chinese to see the possibility of a translation error of the word 'to make' and possibly 'to form,' and the verb 'to create,' but there is not a good correponsing translation to nature or to evolve. When living in China I it was a great source of amusement to translations. On the side of a public bus: Summer English Concentration Camp Enrollment Open.

[Truthseeker]

How can science be science if it is supposed to include a factor that is random and one-case? Impossible to make predictions: Can we anticipate God's plan?

[Jedidiah]

If they had indeed found scientific evidence of a creator then they found scientific evidence for a creator -- Intelligent Design -- and that evidence should then be examined just like anything else not dismissed out of hand because it supports a discredited theory. After all, Lamarckian inheritance has long been in disrepute but recent research especially in the field of Epigenetics has lent it credence in limited areas.

In away, this reminds me a bit of when the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître and how much if not most of the initial opposition (some of which was quite hostile) came from atheists because it was too reminiscent of the creation account seen in Genesis 1.

Follow the evidence folks. No matter where it leads.

Heretic! That is not the scientific method. Oh wait . . . . .

[shunyadragon]

I gave some thought to this related to my experience in doing translations for scientists while living in China. Very often Chinese scientists hire foreigners in China to do translations for them to submit to foreign journals. I did this while working for the China Medical University in Shenyang China. By far most Chinese scientists do not have adequate English to do translations adequate for publication in the west. I believe an English translator with Christian evangelical leanings pulled a fast one giving the translation a Christian Creationist interpretation. The Chinese words involved do not have anything close to the translation meaning between 'Creator' and 'Nature' nor 'Natural.'

[shunyadragon]

Heretic! That is not the scientific method. Oh wait . . . . .

Correct it is not remotely the scientific method, which should not make any theist nor atheist assumptions in the conclusions of the research.

[rogue06]

Correct it is not remotely the scientific method, which should not make any theist nor atheist assumptions in the conclusions of the research.

But what if that was where the evidence led? I'm not saying that is the case here but simply asking what if this was where the evidence led. Should it be disregarded out of hand?

[shunyadragon]

But what if that was where the evidence led? I'm not saying that is the case here but simply asking what if this was where the evidence led. Should it be disregarded out of hand?

You're IFing in a very awkward ridiculous hypothetical way.

On the other hand IF they found the yellow brick road to OZ, than, of course, it should not be disregarded out of hand.

[Crackerjack]

But what if that was where the evidence led? I'm not saying that is the case here but simply asking what if this was where the evidence led. Should it be disregarded out of hand?

Genuine evidence can't be discarded - or it wouldn't be genuine evidence. What's the interesting question is how God's existence could be established scientifically. I believe it can't be established, and God intended it so.

[shunyadragon]

The problem is the human hand is not really unique. The primates of the world all have hands very physically and functionally similar to humans. The most important issue is the hand shows very distinctive evolutionary function as it evolved over millions of years. Even throughout the animal kingdom the bone structure of what humans call hands, arms, feet and legs clearly gradually evolved based on the needs and function of different animals.

After further review of the article I am convinced this was not merely a translation error, as I previously described.

[TheLurch]

The whole thing is disturbing. Since they apparently can't be forgiven the mistake, the implication is that to mention God in a scientific paper is so offensive that even by accident it can't be overlooked.

There is currently no scientific evidence for a God. This paper didn't change that. So, at the moment, there's no reason for any paper to mention God, any more than there is for the flying spaghetti monster. That means this paper should not have gotten through peer review in its current form, and indicates a failure on the part of the journal, and perhaps scientific publishing more widely.

I'm not offended; i'm disappointed in the peer reviewers.

But i'm still waiting for any indication of that it had something specifically to do with the mention of God, and not the failure of peer review. Seems a lot of you are contending the former without providing evidence to back it up.

(NB: as i mentioned earlier, i fully accept the use of the term "creator" made it stand out more obviously.)

[klaus54]

There is currently no scientific evidence for a God. This paper didn't change that. So, at the moment, there's no reason for any paper to mention God, any more than there is for the flying spaghetti monster. That means this paper should not have gotten through peer review in its current form, and indicates a failure on the part of the journal, and perhaps scientific publishing more widely.

I'm not offended; i'm disappointed in the peer reviewers.

But i'm still waiting for any indication of that it had something specifically to do with the mention of God, and not the failure of peer review. Seems a lot of you are contending the former without providing evidence to back it up.

(NB: as i mentioned earlier, i fully accept the use of the term "creator" made it stand out more obviously.)

Yup. And I have no idea what that would even mean, since natural science is methodologically naturalistic.

[rogue06]

But what if that was where the evidence led? I'm not saying that is the case here but simply asking what if this was where the evidence led. Should it be disregarded out of hand?

Apparently nobody appreciated my little word play here

[oxmixmudd]

There is currently no scientific evidence for a God. This paper didn't change that. So, at the moment, there's no reason for any paper to mention God, any more than there is for the flying spaghetti monster. That means this paper should not have gotten through peer review in its current form, and indicates a failure on the part of the journal, and perhaps scientific publishing more widely.

I'm not offended; i'm disappointed in the peer reviewers.

But i'm still waiting for any indication of that it had something specifically to do with the mention of God, and not the failure of peer review. Seems a lot of you are contending the former without providing evidence to back it up.

(NB: as i mentioned earlier, i fully accept the use of the term "creator" made it stand out more obviously.)

I'm fairly convinced it is both. The paper itself could be amended to the proper translation (assuming its substance outside the issue of improper translation is itself worthy of being published) and reposted. But it would seem that is not an acceptable course of action. That would point to the 'offense' being inexcusable, which would justify the POV this is at least as much an issue of intolerance within the scientific community of religious faith as it is an issue related to the failure of peer review.

Jim

[TheLurch]

I'm fairly convinced it is both. The paper itself could be amended to the proper translation (assuming its substance outside the issue of improper translation is itself worthy of being published) and reposted. But it would seem that is not an acceptable course of action. That would point to the 'offense' being inexcusable, which would justify the POV this is at least as much an issue of intolerance within the scientific community of religious faith as it is an issue related to the failure of peer review.

Have you looked into what PLoS policy is regarding papers that are found to be incorrect? Maybe this is exactly what they're doing - retract the faulty one, allow the authors to resubmit the revised version. It also may be that a retraction is the only formal way to get it off their website, which i think we can all agree should happen as soon as possible.

It seems to me you're over-anxious to condemn people here.