A group of researchers recently examined the human hand. They found it so well suited to everyday tasks that they concluded it has " the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance ".
And they managed to get these claims published in a peer-reviewed journal. And not some cargo-cult creationist journal. No, this paper was published in PLOS ONE.
This is a prominent open-access journal I've used many times before. In fact, the very previous post I wrote cited an article from PLOS ONE.
Does the article make a convincing case? Not really. In fact, it's since been retracted. But has the damage already been done?
Proof of "proper design by the Creator"?
What does this research actually say? Do they really provide any evidence the hand is the "proper design by the Creator"?
The general point of the study is that bits of the hand aren't completely independent. They move as a co-ordinated unit. They set out to better understand how this happens by studying the hand as participants picked up "a large number of objects, which were chosen from the most common objects in daily life". Based on this they hoped to investigate
hand coordination affords humans the ability to flexibly and comfortably control the complex structure to perform numerous tasks. Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention
Sure enough, they concluded that hand co-ordination helped humans grab stuff.
These characteristics of coordinated movement reflect the basic functional requirements for dexterous performance of various tasks. . . In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions
This sort of data could be interesting from a basic science perspective. But does it provide evidence the hand was created? Hardly. That claim rests on the idea that the hand represents the ideal "proper" design. Yet no sort of analysis is done to show that the human hand is in the best. Sure, they show it's very good. But that's not enough. They need to show it really is the best possible design, which they don't.
Comments on the paper raise further issues. They question the very idea that this research could demonstrate a creator. After all, they're getting people to pick up objects similar to those used in every day life. Then marvelling how people are good at picking them up. Could this not be because people try and use easy to use objects? It should be a sign of good object design, not good hand design.
As well as not providing an evidence for a Creator, this research also highlights some of the issues with research from a creationist perspective. Being designed, they conclude that the hand must thus be perfectly adapted.
These characteristics of coordinated movement reflect the basic functional requirements for dexterous performance of various tasks. And the muscular-articular connective architecture of the human hand exactly meets such functional requirements. This suggests that there is no need for the human hand to control each joint independently.
They then go on to say that since the human hand meets such requirements so perfectly, future robotics should focus on replicating the human hand. Is this really true? I don't know. But this research clearly doesn't provide good evidence for it. Thus any roboticist using this as their starting point could well find themselves barking (or grasping) up the wrong tree.
A faulty starting assumption leads to faulty conclusions.
Vindicating young-earth creationists?
When I was first reading this paper my heart sank. "The creationists are going to have a field day with this", I thought. And the criticism is only going to play into the "persecuted" narrative.
Except it seems like young-earth creationists aren't going to be able to claim this as a victory. Although the authors of the paper are trying to provide evidence of a "Creator", they definitely aren't talking about a creator that made the earth 6,000 years ago through magic. In fact, at many points they make reference to evolution and how it's produced change in species over millions of years. For example, in the discussion they note:
An important advantage that makes human hand superior to other animals is that the human hand can dexterously perform various tasks, and this unique ability can apparently facilitate the capacity for more effective tool making and tool use during the evolutionary process
So what sort of Creator are they talking about? Well, it's difficult to pin down. As I previously mentioned, they describe the whole phenomena as "mysterious" and are loathe to provide any real details on the subject. Nevertheless, their final conclusion suggests they may be subscribing to some sort of old-earth model. Evolution produced animals, with the Creator tinkering as needed.
the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years
This might seem marginally more reasonable than if this was a young-earth paper. However, to me it just highlights how unreasonable any sort of creationist research inevitably is.
The very fact this sort of ambiguity exists shows how poorly the Creator has been defined. And testing concepts scientifically requires specific, testable predictions that can be examined. Which you can't get from a poorly defined idea. The first phase of any investigation is to lay out the details of what's being tested, but these researchers have done the exact opposite. Retreating to talk about
Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention.
Any science based on such a vague and poorly defined premise is invariably bad.
Has the damage been done?
These problems undermine any conclusions of the study - and any evidence it might show for a Creator. So it should come as no surprise that PLOS ONE retracted it. But I think the damage has been done.
For example, the (much more prestigious) journal Nature recently ran a story about this paper. And the comments on this legitimate journal make out how it's the "evolutionists" who are the bad guys in this story.
Some postulate the outrage was because it didn't reference the god of Nature all scientists worship.
Others claim this as proof the intelligent design movement is gaining ground.
Yet others criticise the outrage over the topic (and take a random swipe at feminism); despite the fact it was this outrage that ultimately got the article retracted.
Clearly some damage has already been done to the reputation of science and science advocates. I suspect it isn't as widespread as it could have been. Young earth creationists can be extremely vocal, and the fact they can't exploit this paper has no doubt limited the impact. Hopefully what I've written here can quell the damage further, showing there are valid issues with the paper and the response is not just a knee-jerk reaction against references to "Creator".
tl;dr
A research paper examines how the hand moves. They claim it is the optimal design, providing evidence of a creator behind it. This is false.
Refernces
Liu, M.J., Xiong, C.H., Xiong, L. and Huang, X.L., 2016. Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PloS one, 11(1), p.e0146193.
