Textual criticism is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts including scripture. It is part of language sciences. Insofar as creationists regard scripture as sacred and never even suspect that scribes may have screwed up their translations, textual critics are diametrically opposed to the creationist frame of mind. They treat scripture like any other human manuscript and analyze it that way. By the way, the comparative approach of textual criticism (stemmatology) has a lot in common with phylogenetics and even predated it in some respects.
The paper in question is textual criticism informed by medical and anatomical knowledge being published in an odd place (a medical journal). The following sentences, however seem to make it clear that they have no creationist agenda:
One of the creation stories in Genesis may be an explanatory myth wherein the Bible attempts to find a cause for why human males lack this particular bone. [...]
This translation, enshrined in the Septuagint, the Greek Bible of the early church, fixed the meaning for most of western civilization, even though the Hebrew was not so specific. Gilbert and Zevit (2001. Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 101(3):284-285)It is admittedly odd to find a piece of textual criticism of the bible in a medical journal, but even Richards Dawkins, the poster child of new atheism, relished engaging in a piece of textual criticism in The Selfish Gene. In my edition of 1989 (reissued with new cover in 1999 by Oxford University Press) it starts at page 16 (chapter 2) and then descends into an endnote:
We tend to regard erratic copying as a bad thing, and in the case of human documents it is hard to think of examples where errors can be described as improvements. I suppose the scholars of the Septuagint could at least be said to have started something big when they mistranslated the Hebrew word for 'young woman' into the Greek word for 'virgin', coming up with the prophecy: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son ...'* Dawkins (1989, p. 16)
* p. 16 'Behold a virgin shall conceive ...'
Several distressed correspondents have queried the mistranslation of 'young woman' into 'virgin' in the biblical prophecy, and have demanded a reply from me. Hurting religious sensibilities is a perilous business these days, so I had better oblige. Actually it is a pleasure, for scientists can't often get satisfyingly dusty in the library indulging in a real academic footnote. The point is in fact well known to biblical scholars, and not disputed by them. The Hebrew word in Isaiah is עלמה (almah), which undisputedly means 'young woman', with no implication of virginity. If 'virgin' had been intended, בְּתוּלָה (bethulah) could have been used instead (the ambiguous English word 'maiden' illustrates how easy it can be to slide between the two meanings). The 'mutation' occurred when the pre-Christian Greek translation known as Septuagint rendered almah into παρθένος (parthenos), which really does usually mean virgin. Matthew (not, of course, the Apostle and contemporary of Jesus, but the gospel-maker writing long afterwards), quoted Isaiah in what seems to be a derivative of the Septuagint version (all but two of the fifteen Greek words are identical) when he said, 'Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with a child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel' (Authorized English translation). It is widely accepted among Christian scholars that the story of the virgin birth of Jesus was a late interpolation, put in presumably by Greek-speaking disciples in order that the (mistranslated) preophecy should be seen to be fulfilled. Modern versions such as the New English Bible correctly give 'young woman' in Isaiah. They equally correctly leave 'virgin' in Matthew, since there they are translating from Greek. Dawkins (1989, p. 270)