snip
IRT journals, conferences etc, they are typically specific to
certain specializations in particular fields. To accept
a theology-based (of any flavor or brand) paper into a zoology
journal would be like discussing evolution in a woodworking
newsgroup. It would be off-topic.

This argument is a red-herring.


No, it is spot on.

more snipping

Do you suppose the the people working in those fields as editors
etc are of the opinion that 'ID' fundamentally lies outside of
their specific sub-branches of science?

I can certainly come up with an intelligent design theory
to explain physical phenomena, but I do not have the gall
to expect _Physics Today_ to publish it.

still snipping

If the publishers of _Nature_ or whatever, do not want to publish
their articles or the sponsors of a conference do not want to
invite them to give their papers or have them put up posters that
is the right of those publishers or sponsors.

The 'IDers' have no right to demand that other people do any
damn thing at all for them.

No publisher or sponsoring organization has any responsibility
to let any particular fringe group appear simply in order to
satisfy your misplaced sense of fair play.


Absolutely right. But if the Science Establishment
refuses to hear them, then the Science Establishment jolly
well better be still when the IDers want their theories
taught in the schools as (possible) *science*. The heart of
the whole business culturally is that the Science Establishment
want's neither to hear/refute/affirm the IDers AND wants
them kept out of school. That's a foul in my book. If their
ideas are not science, than this needs to be demonstrated so
as to keep them off the science curricula. Ignoring them
or freezing them out of the discussion is just cheap tactics.


lots more snipping - trying to keep this short.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Putting aside the name calling, here are some considerations. The ID
"scientists" need to approach the problem scientifically if they expect
scientific acceptance. This means using the scientific method:
1. propose a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon
2. design experimental tests that show that the hypothesis does, indeed,
explain something that is not otherwise adequately explained by conventional
science
3. report these results through refereed journals and conferences. If 1
and 2 are proper and compelling, the results will be accepted, and hence the
hypothesis will be established.
4. keep in mind Occam's razor: the best explanation is the simplest one.

This process usually is iterated, with one set of results suggesting more
investigations. However, repeated assertions that "something" is too
complicated for natural selection to account for it does not constitute a
meaningful hypothesis or its experimental investigation. The ID advocates
have not yet built up a scientific case to insert into the science
curriculum.

IMHO
Steve