[HalfFull]

I don't think ID will get anywhere in the scientific community until Behe, Dembski, or someone actually starts submittig papers for peer review.

The reason people like Behe don't get a "peer review" is because those who control such reviews are evolutionists who cannot stand to have anyone challenge their little religion.

[general_re]

The reason people like Behe don't get a "peer review" is because those who control such reviews are evolutionists who cannot stand to have anyone challenge their little religion.

How many papers containing original research on ID has Behe submitted to peer-reviewed journals, and had rejected?

[Ogmios]

He can be peer reviewed at any time that he likes, as a matter of fact he has been peer reviewed, and got rather angry about it.

All he has to do is pay the fee and send in his papers, that's it, and then he will get peer reviewed just as every other scientist does.

Here is the man that upsets him so much, Behe got peer reviewed, but he didn't like it, at all.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

If Behe wanted to be peer reviewed, he could without any problem at all, he chooses not to be peer reviewed.

I wonder why that is?

[Virginia-American]

evolutionists who cannot stand to have anyone challenge their little religion.

It's a mighty strange 'religion' that changes its dogma when new fossils are found, or dna/proteins sequenced.

The reason people like Behe don't get a "peer review" is because those who control such reviews are evolutionists who cannot stand to have anyone challenge their little religion.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Why hasn't someone even *tried*? Especially Dembski, he claims to have solved some major math problem in stats, and also to have discovered a 'law of the conservation of information'. Do you really think that all the reviewers of *math* journals are gunning for him?! On what evidence?

We're talking *math* here, not biology. If he really is being discriminated against, surely he could have a grad student submit it to a journal, or write it up as thesis. Or a retired professor who longer needs grants. Why couldn't someone like Fred Hoyle get it reviewed and published in a reputable journal, assuming it's good enough?

My *guess* remains the same. He knows it's not up to snuff, and that's why it only appears in popular books.

If Behe had submitted his "black box" for an honest review, whether to a journal or not, it would have saved him considerable embarassment.

Anyone, not just scientists, benefits from feedback from experts. Maybe Behe truly thought that all the parts of the humcan clotting cascade are found in all mammals. If he'd run it by a cetologist first, he'd have known better.

To our resident scientists: any thoughts?