Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: evidence for intelligent design. Please help to let it be peer-reviewed.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18

    evidence for intelligent design. Please help to let it be peer-reviewed.

    Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/p...ademic-freedom

    Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,669
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Dubreuil View Post
    Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/p...ademic-freedom

    Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.
    I agree that peer review is important. However, the "Intelligent Design" has no testable concepts. The reason ID has a bed reputation is that it is psuedoscience. It a fraud, a fake, and a lie. No research journal would accept it because it is BULL.
    ‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Dubreuil View Post
    Hello everyone. I was concerned with a study about unconscious human decision processes for a few years. At the end it turned out to support intelligent design. We submitted it to Bio-Complexity, the only research journal that supports intelligent design as far as we know. But they told us, they only accept research papers about intelligent design with an emphasis on biology. That leaves virtually no place for us to let our paper be accepted for a peer-review. We had already asked some research journals if they publish papers about intelligent design some time ago, but they denied. We asked Janine Dixon for a recommendation, but she replied there would be currently no journal that would accept our paper (Quote within the URL below). ID has in science a bad reputation and we doubt a common research journal would accept a paper about intelligent design or creationism. But we believe Bio-Complexity could be convinced to accept all papers about intelligent design, that would be not accepted somewhere else. For this purpose we started a petition to convince Bio-Complexity to accept all important papers about intelligent design: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/p...ademic-freedom

    Debating in forums about religion and science can be interesting. But the real research is done for research journals, at which all research about a specific topic is published. Evidences for intelligent design are very important to develop this theory. Help us to convince Bio-Complexity to accept our paper for a peer-review. The peer-review should be a mere formality, we already asked other scientist to estimate our result. They were only slightly biased, because we know them in person.
    Two problems with you paper. First off, your conclusion should not be that patterns are the result of ID. There is no logical path to get there. Your conclusion should be that you found some curious patterns and have no explanation. You might hypothesize, but as soon as you guess that it is ID, your paper and all its conclusions become pseudo-scientific because there is no way to test for this.

    The second problem is that you have contrived search algorithms that inevitably find the patterns you are looking for. Therefore, your data is completely invalid. Basically what you did is analogous to me throwing out random numbers, cataloging the numbers to find common sequences (which inevitably will exist), and then claiming that you were looking for those exact sequences all along. The scientific way would be to find the common sequences, catalog them, and then throw out more random numbers to see if they occur again. Of course your whole point is that the patterns are not random, but I hope you can understand what I am talking about.
    "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" - Bill Maher

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •