A storm of criticism immediately followed the publication of
the paper on the PLOS One website, leading to its retraction. The interested
reader can catch up with the detail on the web (see for example RetractionWatch). At least one response has appeared, purporting to come from one of the
authors (and quoted by Retraction Watch), which contains the following comment:
“What we
would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous
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 authors
claimed that their problem was that they were not writing in their native
language (presumably Mandarin as they are Chinese) and had just used the wrong
word (Creator rather than Nature). We haven’t heard much from the editor
concerned (an academic in the US), who is apparently no longer an editor for
PLOS One.
There’s
lots about this tale that is intriguing. Selfishly I suppose I am disappointed
that the credibility of PLOS One as a scientific journal has probably been
undermined, at least among some sections of the scientific community. That’s because
I have published there, as a cost effective way of getting out data published
in an “open access” journal. My experience of the reviews I’ve received is that
they have been no more or less rigorous than those received by other
mid-ranking journals. They’ve tended to be the usual mix of reasonable critique
from fellow scientists who have read the manuscript and spotted dodgy language and
issues needing clarification, and trivial comments about stuff that a reviewer
just hasn’t read properly. The editors I’ve dealt with have been fair minded,
and eventually the papers have appeared, probably better for the scrutiny. I’m
pretty sure if I had given the Creator the credit He is surely due for the bits
of the Universe I happen to investigate, it would have been spotted and criticized.
Whether it would have led to challenge and rejection, I can’t say. That I don’t
give the Creator credit in this way is entirely appropriate. And here’s why.Science deals with things which can be observed and measured, or the predictions of provisional theories that can be observed and measured. We tend not to worry too much about ultimate causes, well beyond those we can see, measure and manipulate. But the knowledge generated by science is not the only knowledge we have about stuff. That’s because there are plenty of things that matter to us all that can’t be measured, prodded and poked. Analogies abound in books about science and faith, from the complementary explanations required to understand what appears on a TV screen when you’re watching “Trooping the Colour”, to the levels of explanation required to understand the enigmatic smile on the face of Mona Lisa. There are other sources of information.
The other important source of data I have to consider is found in God’s self-revelation of Himself in Scripture. From this it’s clear to me that all that there is came into being because of the exercise of His power, and that it has continued in existence because of the continual exercise of His power. But why won’t you find such statements in my papers in PLOS One (or Experimental Brain Research, or the British Journal of Visual Impairment etc, etc)? Because it’s not relevant to the issues that we discus in such places, where we are concerned with the latency of eye movements, patients’ views on treatment and such like. I understand this, and Liu et al should have understood it too.
The response of Liu et al (as reported), which suggests a willingness to swap the word “Creator” with the word “Nature”, doesn’t really help the situation. It suggests further confusion, perhaps linguistic, certainly philosophical. All it does is take the credit for design from the person to whom it should go (although I recognize this is a statement of faith and not science), and direct is to a series of processes that don’t “design” anything. They even qualify design by calling it “proper”. What would improper design look like? If they're serious about this use of words, then they are suggesting that we go back to a state of affairs in which “Nature” is deified. This is an ancient and for many an acceptable view. However it turns out that it is inimical to the development and practice of the scientific method. It is a Biblically shaped world-view, one that believes that what is around us is understandable, and that it should be questioned, investigated and understood, that leads to science. It was no accident that science as we now have it, only fully developed where and when it did. I don't suppose many of my colleagues would agree with this. It turns out that it's not just in the words of Liu et al that the Creator has been usurped.
