Your posts are at odds with each other. On the one hand you assert that ID should not be allowed in the classroom, and then in the same breath you demand proof that IDers are discrimated against. What a laugh. If you want proof, Yahoo! is but a few keystrokes away. Or better yet, go watch Ben Stein’s EXPELLED.
Not allowed in the science classsroom. It's perfectly OK in, say, rhetoric or psychology classes.
... and then in the same breath you demand proof that IDers are discrimated against. ...
What I've asked for several times is evidence that they aren't allowed to publish in normal scientific journals. None has been provided.
I see the evoultionists are still playing their same games.
In the case of c-m, putting words in your mouth, ascribing motives to you, and creating strawmen at every turn.
And in the case of v-a, more strawmen and false accusations.
These adherents of evoultionary beliefs and the methods they employ are hardly scientific, nor do the content of their arguments carry any sceintifc weight.
A google of ‘intelligent design papers science journal rejected’ yields 1,030,000 articles {for intelligent design papers science journal rejected. (0.19 seconds}
Here is just one piece out of just one of those 1,030,000 articles.
http://creationwiki.org/Creationists_are_prevented_from_publishing_in_science_journals
Dr. Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists being abused for their belief in Scientific Creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach. Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death threats because of their views. Jerry Bergman: The Criterion (Onesimus publishers, 1984)
Robert Gentry, He tried to get his work into Nature (which he did in his later years, after toning down the creationist conclusion) it was rejected because of “wild speculation,” and it was “unworthy of publication.”
One of the judges even told him that he, Gentry, would have a better chance to get his work published if he removed the “absurd” conclusions.