ALL scientists endure what might reasonably be interpreted as technical redicule during peer review--that is the function of peer review, and it is appropriate. Science is not a popularity contest, it is a contest of ideas, with the prejudice, all else being equal, properly on the side of the established doctrines. Science is not some hollywood beauty show where we crown queen the most photogenic idea of the moment.
So you agree that scientists have to go through a rigorous defense of their ideas to establish them, and you cite some examples? Where in all this is your disagreement with my assessment of the situation?
They do have to go through a rigorous defense. But they are not always attacked based on scientific principles. Infrequently they are attacked based on assumptions and theories that have not been proven true. And when such is the case, they are unwilling to even consider the science.
My point is that with such a list having been called crazy and charlatrans by the "scientific community", could it be that the scientific community is doing the same thing with ID?
Instead of critically examining the claims as an alternative theory, they dogmatically conclude that this is religion and exclude it from scientific publication and circles. And in so doing, they refuse to even consider the claims or look objectively at the evidence.