Popular science journal PLOS ONE recently published a comprehensive study led by Chinese researchers. The study mapped out and detailed the intricate design and inner workings of the human hand.
That study has now been retracted, all because of one word.
The authors of the study used the word Creator to describe the “connective architecture” of the hand. The objective paper, titled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living,” passed PLOS ONE‘s initial editing process. However, after the word Creator was brought to the editor’s attention, the study was quickly retracted. PLOS ONE immediately apologized to the scientific community and the world for publishing the forbidden word. Social media erupted with hashtag #CreatorGate.
Present-day science has become intellectually intolerant, censoring beliefs, acting as thought police
The present-day science community operates a lot like a cartel, like some sort of thought police, censoring beliefs and touting their way as the only way to the portals of science. Censoring any discussion of an intelligent design in nature, modern-day scientists seem to be following some ideological cult. The Creator is pushed out of the discussion. Science has become strictly material, and it’s bought and sold and followed blindly, like some sort of arrogant idolatry of self.
Here’s the piece that angered the scientific community: “the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture… is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.” Even though the sentence described the researcher’s deeper observations and conclusions, it was forcibly removed as the entire study on the inner workings of the human hand was retracted.
Speaking in the journal Nature, one of the Chinese authors of the study was baffled. “[W]e are not native speakers of English, and entirely lost the connotations of some words such as ‘Creator,'” he said. “I am sorry for that.”
This didn’t matter to PLOS ONE. Any mention of the word Creator, in whatever context, is forbidden.
PLOS ONE follows along in cult-like fashion, obeying the egotistical science community
Science editor of PLOS ONE Danilo Russo had strong feelings about the study, saying, “I feel outraged by the publication of a [manuscript] making explicit reference to creationism. This is an extremely serious issue for which the academic editor who handled the paper as well as the journal, besides the authors themselves, should be blamed.”
He continues, “I feel my scientific reputation to be put at risk by this incredible mistake, so should this paper not be retracted as soon as possible I will be compelled to resign from my position of PLoS ONE academic editor. Moreover, I am determined to avoid taking on any further assignment until this issue is fully solved.” His response is indicative of the obedient, cult-like behavior of today’s egotistical, censorship brand of science.
Melanie Phillips of The Times of Londonexplains the debacle very well. “Underlying much of this disarray,” she wrote, “is surely the pressure to conform to an idea, whether political, commercial or ideological.”
“Scientists [today] pose as secular priests,” wrote Phillips. “They alone, they claim, hold the keys to the universe…. The resulting absence of openness and transparency is proving the scientists’ undoing.”
Science and spirituality don’t have to be contrasts; they help explain one another
Intellectual intolerance is plaguing the present-day scientific community, censoring out any discussion about a grander, intelligent design occurring within, throughout and above nature. In their arrogance, many scientists create a divide between what they call science and what they see as a fictitious Creator. Science does not have to be at war with the idea of a Creator. The intricate beauty, vastness, natural relationships and interconnectedness of our world and universe show that man will never be able to understand it all, that there are powers, intelligence and a design greater than us.
The bloated ego of our current cult science must be deflated and replaced with a greater tolerance for the ideas that bridge our understanding of science and our spirituality.
The gatekeepers of “science” do not hold all the answers, and maybe that’s what scares the present-day science community the most. Maybe they object to the idea of a grand Designer because then they would have to humble themselves and let go their ego.