I never realized science and faith were completely incompatible. When I dissected a frog in elementary school and studied its organs, I never pondered who designed the frog in the first place. It was just interesting to see what the guts looked like and how they all fit inside that poor frog. This is obviously why I was never a candidate for an advanced degree in biochemistry.But apparently, the mere mention of a Creator or intelligent design among a coterie of scientists will draw shock, outrage, derision and banishment from their hallowed halls.
The Independent reports, 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 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.”Later, it says human hand coordination “should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention,” and concludes by again claiming the mechanical architecture of the hand is the result of “proper design by the Creator.”
GASP! There might be a GOD?Well apparently not to scientists, and it is in fact verboten to mention. The Independent reports the journal has published a retraction and erased all mention of the Creator. I’m deeply bothered by the term “pseudoscientific” by the way. Of course faith isn’t scientific. That’s what makes it FAITH.
I am far more certain of the existence of intelligent design than I am of intelligent discourse in this day and age.
[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford]