Common Design Theory, Revisited

I just finished a ROUGH draft of the common design theory. I went as far as I possibly could with it and made all the necessary changes and omissions to the theory I constructed with the non-believers on this forum. More importantly, the article has been edited and informally peer-reviewed. I even asked , my editor whether I addressed their main objections and she and her team informed me that I was successful in addressing the alleged fatal objections in the article. Here it is…

Dear author,

I have edited your manuscript for language and grammar. I believe you have addressed the objections adequately. However, there are still a few areas that need further clarification. There are also some good arguments in the appendices that could be incorporated into the main text if you feel they are important enough. Please see my notes for more details. Overall, the manuscript is much more clear and detailed than in previous rounds of editing, and is coming together very nicely. It appears that you are nearing submission readiness; if you require help with journal formatting or cover letter creation, please contact us and we will be happy to help.

For any of you who may doubt the amount of scientific rigor this manuscript has gone through, let me briefly describe the process it went through.

I purchased scientific editing services from a company called Editage. This service consisted of three senior experts with 20-plus years of experience in my field of research who reviewed and shared critical feedback on improvements to the paper. These 03 senior experts worked at every stage of the paper’s development, which involved…1. A peer-review process that check the paper for content check and improvement 2. an editing process that checked the paper for language quality and improvements 3. A senior Editor who checked the language quality as well as the technical quality check of your paper making it publication ready.

More importantly, every time I sent this article for rework, the paper was assigned to the same set of experts who worked on each round of rework. A total of 10 rounds were sent out to check the paper for its merits and validity and clarity.

I posted the objections the expert is referring to in post 320:

Universal Common Designer, Part VI? - Peaceful Science

Now, I acknowledge that this does not guarantee publication in a secular scientific journal. As the Editage website even said, “Publication depends largely on the quality of your research and is a subjective decision that the journal editor takes based on several factors.”.
Professional English Editing Service, Scientific Editing, Academic Translation and Publication Support Services | Editage

Nevertheless, at the very least, we can say that we finally have a comprehensive theory of intelligent design. A job well done everyone!

Now, I want to shift gears to the topic at hand. I need to know from fellow Christians what they think we should do next in advancing this theory forward, so we potentially end this conflict and much more.

Should we send it to a secular scientific journal?

Should we invite someone from ReasonstoBelieve (RTB) to evaluate this article similar to Winston’s dependency graph?

Or do a combination of the two?

What’s the best course of action going forward now?

This time around I am going to need input from Christian scientists who have not commented much or at all on the theory. However, non-christians or secular scientists are, of course, welcomed since your contributions made the most impact on the article.

Again, the common design theory has been informally peer-reviewed and EDITED. This means that you guys should not have any problem reading it and accept the arguments that successfully address the main objections non-christians have made on here.

Just make sure you read the whole article and most of the sources BEFORE you respond on here. Or read as much as you need to be convinced. Otherwise, it will take longer for everyone to accept the claim that God is a well tested scientific theory. Here it is…

There are of course some very technical elements in the article. So if you guys have any further questions, please ask away and I will do my best to answer.

God bless


Where is this paper published? Where can we read it?

What journal is going to be published? When? At that point, it might be worth discussing.

It’s not going to be published in any serious scientific journal. He seems to think that paying a service to edit your manuscript constitutes “peer review.”


Editgage home page
Fee schedule

This sad exercise reminds me of an old Doris Day episode I recall from my childhood, where, for a charge, a company advertises for original song lyrics. When the character sends in his composition “Your Love is Like Butter Gone Rancid”, of course this is lauded as a masterpiece.


I hope you understand that very few of the people you mention below are biologists or even scientists of any sort. Nevertheless, I will predict that any of them who bother to respond will not find your theories very sound or even comprehensible.

Still, congratulations to your editing service for making some good money off your sow’s ear.


Are you saying that this is the best way forward in your opinion?

@swamidass I appreciate your desire to be as empathetic and open minded as you can with most people. But I think this is an instance where a person is best served by brutal honesty from someone whose opinion he seems to value. FWIW.


With some tongue in cheek I would suggest submitting the paper to the Journal of Theoretical Biology. They have on more than one occasion published related papers.

Are you using the “Royal we”, or are you extending some degree of “ownership/investment” in this theory to all the persons who responded to the various threads on PS, or perhaps even PS itself?

I actually agree with this but the reasons behind this will not be based on the merits but on bias.

I know. I just included them anyways to fellowship with Christians on this forum since I have been ignoring them, for the most part, all this time.

Well, like I said before, if they have any further questions, I will do my best to answer and make it easier for them to accept my claim.

I agree.

Are you saying submitting it directly to a scientific journal is the best way forward in your opinion?

Yes, actually. There is no way this paper would have gone the distance without the contributions of PS users, specifically the non-believers on this forum. Is this going to be a problem? I thought the main purpose of this forum was to find a way to end the origins debate.


1 Like

(opens Visual Studio and starts hacking on some experiments with evolutionary algorithms)

You are wrong. The main purpose is to promote the genealogical Adam and Eve, which is thought by some to be able to end or at least mitigate the “origins debate”. It has the advantage that it’s compatible with the historical scientific evidence, which your notions are not.

You have been told over and over that your theory has no value, explains nothing, and is not even coherent. You woj’t believe it coming from any non-Christian. It’s my hope that some Christian here will be blunt and tell you the same thing. Perhaps then you would believe it and stop wasting your time and, apparently, your money on this pointless excercise.


I’d suggest:

(1) The Journal of Irreproducible Results (though I’m unclear as to whether they accept tragedy – it may be comedy only);
(2) The Worm Runners’ Digest (though they’ve been out of print for decades, perhaps they’ll do a special issue?);
(3) The Newsletter of the David Hasselhoff fan club. They have a hell of a time finding anyone to write about anything.


Let’s be clear that you don’t actually have a field of research. You have no credentials or education of even cursory relevance, or worth, on any topic you write about. There is no coherency to your ideas at all. They are not even ideas as much as they are just some hodge-podge mix of unrelated topics, not even comprehended at title-level only, you’ve cobbled together.


Hi Meekrat
My opinion for what it is worth is that you are trying to do too many things with this thesis. I think the quantum wave form collapse consciousness idea is too complex and poorly understood to be a viable thesis at this point. Wait to see if it becomes more developed by Penrose and others.

Another part of your thesis appears to be multiple trees vs a single tree of life. There is lots of potential evidence that may support this thesis including looking at genes, chromosomes and other cellular material that is not supporting a single tree. For instance Rino’s have 82 chromosomes and horses have 64. Given this how would you hypothesize they are the same kind?

Comedy is tragedy plus time, and this has been going on long enough.


I agree that @Meerkat_SK5’s post makes this service look rather sketchy. But do we know that it is sketchy, or is it something that is also used by more legitimate writers who might need help polishing the English prose of their papers, especially if they primarily speak a different language?