Sorry, but I don't buy this excuse. As mentioned by others, it is not just the incorrect use of the word "creator". The whole context of the sentences is very clearly about creationism. The words "superior", "proper", "mystery" and "invention" are at least as disturbing and appalling as the word "Creator" (see the citations below). And if it is all just an incorrect use of a word (mentioned no less than 3 times in the paper) by a non-native speaker, why was it (plus the other appalling words) not picked up by the editor or one of the reviewers?
- "An important advantage that makes human hand superior to other animals"
- "proper design by the Creator"
- "the mystery of the Creator?s invention"

If you need professional language help with future manuscripts, please take a look at the following website: www.theeditorsite.com

It is difficult to me to believe in this excuse knowing that the affiliation of one the authors is USA

(Le Xiong Foisie School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609?2280, United States of America).

Furthermore, have this paper been reviewed? If so, the reviewers also are responsible for such a terrible mistake.

Hello,

Changing the word ?Creator? into ?Nature? will not make your paper flawless. And this is not only about you anymore as your editor gave his warrant to PLoS one to publish your text as it appeared.

Even without the word ?Creator?, your text is problematic.
?Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator?s invention.? (Intro?s first paragraph)
You should consider replacing ?invention? too. Plus: since when is science performed to point at a mystery rather than bringing it into light, piece by piece? This is faith speaking. Wonders of nature are for our eyes, ie they are subjective, and your text is full of subjective claims. Select examples of hollow sentences can be found in a comment I posted this morning.

?We adopted the reverse research method, going from the result to the reason.? (Discussion)
How is that ?reverse?? What would be ?forward research method?? As you put it, it would go ?from the reason to the result?? which is fraud as I understand it. Besides, how many research methods do you think we can apply? The only research method that I know is called inferential: from controlled facts and context to interpretation. This supposed ?pluralism? reminded me that science is an opinion in the opinion of creationists.
Even though you claim having nothing to do with creationism, your paper in this form has.

Having sampled quite a few sentences in a few minutes, I have strong concerns about the editing process. I noticed that the editor is based in Ohio. I also noticed that creationists have been especially active over there. I hope that this is coincidental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/...
http://www.cleveland.com/...

Finally, I daresay that style flaws are not typical of Intelligent Design products. Catchy titles once confined to reviews are now used for research papers themselves, and worse: biological objects are commonly endowed with intentions in the sentences describing how they evolve, meet or perform their functions, even in good papers. Using simple, truthful words as we describe our work is not only a personal choice: it is also a responsibility that we all should stand for.
Thank you for your attention.

Dear Ming-Jin Liu,
You can change the word "Creator" by "nature" or "teapot" or "flying spaghetti monster" or whatever you want. This is not the problem. The problem with this article is that you try to explain facts with the unfalsifiable claim that a transcendent force is responsible for them. This idea is present throughout your article, and therefore it should be rejected.
Note that English is not my native language either and this is certainly not an excuse.

I find it shameful that you are trying to gamble other fellow scientists into believing that this was just a wording issue. Sorry, but scientist should try better than using empty rhetoric like bad politicians do. The problem with your text was a problem of ideas, and your ideas remain intact in the corrected that you propose. You have to refrain from the whole idea because we are not here discuss our faiths and religious beliefs. The posture towards evolution that you defend has been publicly acknowledged as being fundamentally anti-scientific, irrational and obscurantist.

If after this public debate you continue to relentless defend that someone (now NATURE, before, the CREATOR) designs living beings, the journal should immediately cancel this publication. This attitude of conscious deception should never be allowed in a scientific journal.

As others have commented, I am also non native English speaker and, contrary to your co-author, I have never lived or worked in a English-speaking country.