March 3, 2016

Scientific Journal Cites Creator: Evolutionists' Panties Burst Into Flames

Nothing like a little, good old-fashioned Creationism to get the juices flowing, the passions ignited and the prejudices quickened in the heart, loins and mouths of liberals. This is actually better than sex to a liberal because having sex means you both are of one sex or another and that's forcing a sexual definition on your partner and of course that is sexist. The only non-sexist sex you can have is sex with yourself because you are not defining sex for anyone else but yourself, except if you are schizophrenic, and then you're too crazy to have sex with yourself because your self identity changes so often and who wants to have sex with a stranger?

Getting back to the panty flames, a scientific journal credited the work of "the Creator" in the design of the human hand.
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.

[...]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."
This will always produce a five alarm fire in the academic community. Heresy fighters are mobilized, reputations are trashed, threats are issued and careers are stung because the hive must be protected. The Queen Evolution Bee is guarded zealously you see. Government grants are at stake.
[...]Naturally, the multiple references to intelligent design in a reputable journal like PLOS ONE have stoked anger in the scientific community, and many people, including researchers who work as editors for the publication, are now calling for it to be retracted.


Doom said...

From a Chinese U? It sounds like they are spoofing. Though maybe they are attempting to turn things on their head. I love the whole notion, and while I do agree with it, I also agree that it is not scientific. Just as I don't want science to attempt to deny God, for it can't. I also don't want science to lean on God. For while it can, everything could be laid at God's feet (and should be, faithfully). But that doesn't tell us much biomechanically. Then again, I'd have to read the paper. If it's good material, with God being thanked for His work, I could go with that. I thank Him, just so, for every meal. He hasn't, technically, cooked one meal, or hunted the food, or grown it, or harvested, or... but it's all His. And my ability to find my way to it is a gift.

Blathering... Later.

sig94 said...

Doom - blathering is ok.