When Peer Review Fails: Bad Science Papers of the Week

Someone claiming to be an author of the paper has weighed in: PLOS ONE retracting paper that cites the Creator:

quote:

---

We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.
We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and write up. I hope this paper will not be discriminated only because of this misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper before making a decision.

​

Competing interests declared: I am the author of paper.

---

It's pretty obvious that nobody here is taking anything on faith. We're evaluating evidence, looking for more, and discussing possible interpretations and the reliability of what we have.It's creationists that unquestioningly seize on any straw and refuse to question it.HTH.