Oh wait, it's been done, but never seems to make it out of the review committee for publication...'cuz it doesn't qualify as science or a theory.
If it hasn't been published, how would you know?
OK, cool. Given that, a question: Why is it that you science-fiction moonies express absolutely no objections to "ethic studies", whatever that is, as "science", to Margaret Mead's fakery as "science", to the Kinsey report stating that 10% of us are pederasts, as "science", to calling 1,000 people at random and asking if they think the sun is going to come up tomorrow as "scientific polling", to "political science", whatever that is again, to Chomsky's gibberish as "science", but you get your panties all twisted when the IDers come up with some alternatives to your own fantasies? (FYI: The cat has no dog in this Lucha LIbre!)
Regarding "peer review".
I think that most if not all of the supposed "missing link" discoveries were "peer reviewed" and published, like ‘Piltdown man’, Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon man, ‘Java man’, coelacanths, Archaeopteryx, ‘Lucy’, Ramapithecus, ‘Nebraska man’ and most if not all have been bebunked as false claims.
And look at the recent problem with Dr. Woo's stem cell research in South Korea. His work WAS peer reviewed and published and hailed as a breakthrough... and guess what, it was based on lies also.
If you look closedly, you may find that peer reveiwers often approve things that agree with their own world view and object to those that do not.
Think about it.