Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 10 2012,11:18)|
Actually, quality hit-wise, the computer model and included theory is doing better by being published at Planet Source Code than it would in an average science journal.
In what way?
| And PSC does not care about typos and a little bad grammar, or has a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.|
What publications have that policy then?
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even though I would (just to see what happens) not hesitate to submit something that I felt was ready to go, this really is a lot of theory that takes more than a quick paper to explain. It also does not help to have half the scientific community spitting on the journal, then canceling their subscriptions in protest, for allowing ID to be taken seriously. Especially after seeing it daring to suggest that their Evolutionary Algorithms could somehow be an imperfect model of reality.
What is already proudly published at Planet Source Code is for now, an excellent way to see what the theory looks like in science. It's there a how-to for self-learners who only need that. And top journals seriously do not want to get stuck in the middle of something that protesting scientists should have resolved somewhere else first, like here. So here, I am...
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.