If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Remember that I am not an ordinary scientist..
You're still subject to the same rules, if you want it to BE science.
Either you do the legwork for the svience, or you're just a guy on a virtual street corner, screaming at passing cars.
How could a discoverer be reviewed by an ordinary scientist,
If your 'science' cannot stand scrutiny, it's not science. If it's vorrect, it's only by coincidence.
Every single revolutionary idea has only won over critics by standing up to scrutiny. Submit your observations, independent of presuppositionist interpretations, then explain why your conclusions are better.
especially if that scientist has no clue on intelligence?
Same as every theory, everywhere.
Evolutionary theory had a rough go, rejected by critics,but came to dominate science thru convincing predictions, repeatable observations.
Where will they get criteria if I am right or wrong if they themselves are ignorant of the topic? Oh my...
You have to spell that out in your predictions. Your experiments. Your observations.
You show why you're right, and when thrry point out that you're wrong, you don't dismiss them as unworthy to speak at you.