Chinese research was ostracized because of the creation of the Genesis Theory

The research repeatedly mentions the Creator of a Chinese group of writers with harsh criticism and a strong boycott from the scientific community around the world.

On January 5, multidisciplinary magazine PLOS ONE published the results of a research team in China on the field of biomechanics of human hands. However, this work repeatedly refers to the "Creator" , a term that refers to the creator of all creation in the Theory of Creation. The author even concluded that "the coordination of the hand shows the mystery of the Creator's creation".

Relevance to the Creator raises a flow of objection on the website of PLOS ONE magazine and the Twitter social network. Many argue that the above-mentioned scientific work is "embarrassing" and "unacceptable" and requires the editorial board to remove it.

The picture of Creator born Michelangelo's Adam.

The reason Chinese authors put forward to explain this is the confusion when using the English word "Creator" (Creator) instead of "Nature" .

"We are very sorry for this controversy. Our research has no relationship with the theory of creation. English is not our native language. Our understanding of The word "Creator" is not as full as indigenous people. Now we have realized that we misunderstand the word "Creator" and we want to express that the biological characteristics of ants. The connection between muscle and articulation is an appropriate design of nature (the result of evolution) in countless daily tasks , " said Ming-Jin Liu, lead author of the paper. and researcher at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, feedback on 3/3.

However, whether the cause is really a mistake in translating or not, the reader is disappointed that this work passes through rigorous critical rounds as well as the strict censorship of the PLOS magazine editorial board. ONE.

According to IFL Science, also on March 3, a member of the editorial board of PLOS ONE made a public apology for the flaw and admitted that the review process did not fully evaluate some aspects of the study. .

After conducting an internal assessment and hearing from experts, PLOS ONE has removed the research of Chinese authors on March 4.