国内有人发表学术文章研究一通之后说是人手忒复杂，应是上帝弄出来的

那只是摘要里的一个比喻,你们啊,不要想,喜欢弄个大新闻,就把人家批判一番,你们啊,不要见得风是得雨,你们要会判断,你宣传一遍,等于你也有责任吧？

我还真没见过比喻用 the Creator 这个词的。你说是比喻比什么呢？ @theoractice

@theoractice 玩的 6

续一秒。

Thus, 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.
因此，手的协调能力让人类灵活和舒适地控制复杂结构来完成许多任务。手的协调能力暗示了创造者的创造力背后的奥秘。

结合上下文我不认为 Creator 应该翻译为造物主。

The Creator ，大写 C 。你看看在英文里这指啥。
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creator?q=the+creator#creator__5

回过头来，你翻译的“创造者”有明确的解释么？ @strikeactor

@leemail 没注意他是大写的，是我阅读不仔细了

比喻人手的活动很精妙，并没有什么不妥呀

@livid 这个版主题 append 之后的配色背景和文字是一样的

PLOS 系列有 reader comment 的，自己下去翻翻，貌似作者方也出来洗白了

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.


据称是杂志官方表态：
Notification from PLOS Staff
Posted by PLoS_ONE_Group on 02 Mar 2016 at 18:56 GMT

A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a 'Creator'. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.

要撤稿了


Follow-up Notification from PLOS Staff
Posted by PLoS_ONE_Group on 03 Mar 2016 at 19:45 GMT

The PLOS ONE editors have followed up on the concerns raised about this publication. We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.

In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.

华中科技大学的，干嘛不找外国人先看一下

@jackbalck2006 @zingl 你看作者拿英语不差，这看起来就很像是故意这样写的。连 nature 都报道这个事了

贡献一篇相关文章： http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA4NDQwNDQ2Nw==&mid=402291970&idx=1&sn=ad329ca935df4e408c1665367cba6c0d&scene=2&srcid=0305a9KrD1ME0y8XQudywA1K&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#wechat_redirect

没有看原文，我还是不评价了。只是这个用词的确有点奇怪。