According to their website, a vast majority of researchers would disagree:
“Over 97% of researchers believe that pre-submission peer review service improved the quality of their last published paper by identifying scientific errors and missing and inaccurate references.”
Again, they never said this service constituted actual scientific peer-review, but it is a close simulation of it:
Pre-Submission Peer Review Services: Eliminate major reasons for manuscript rejection | Editage
You’ve gotta be kidding me. This whole time you were claiming my paper was fatally flawed and was pure conjecture and yet you did not even read it!!! 
Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science
Well, you did not even read the updated draft of my paper. So how the hell do you know.
Merely asserting it to be so, does not make it true . You need to explain how they are not contradictory. Again, Is my ID model based on bad science because it got passed bad reviewers over 50 plus times or is it quality science because it got passed good reviewers 50 plus times?
Damn! You finally figured me out. 
However, I would prefer to call it negative feedback on my arguments.