You obviously don't know how the publication process works, so let me enlighten you. Before you send an article to a journal, you typically write up a working paper with your findings. You then post the working paper on a scientific working paper website (each discipline has its own; mine is www.ssrn.com) and you circulate it to your colleagues to get some comments.
Most working papers never make it past this stage and never make it into a journal. But that doesn't make them dissapear. Old working papers that never got published from as long as 20 years are still widely available.
So here's my question: where are the working papers with evidence for ID? The Discovery Institute has been around for about 10 years, so if their researchers are actually producing this research, where is it? I searched and searched in vain for it and have yet to find any.
Even if the supposedly "liberal elitist" editors of the science journals are rejecting all this research, the rejected papers must be somewhere. Where?
I know how liberals work, and that the “paper publication process” is hardly the point!
Frankly, I’ve seen ideas about snowflakes, inner ears, etc. on paper, submitted as papers, made of paper; that more than satisfied me and many others btw, AND some inexplicable “big bang” on ga-jillions of papers just isn’t a good enough theory TO SOMEHOW DISCOUNT past, current or future works of alternative theory!
I don’t NEED papers from others to help me think, one way or the other, published or otherwise. Scientists aren’t God and some magical group of them don’t forever define science for me or everyone else either!
Besides the fact that papers are just that: papers for peer rerview...some 100 years ago, now or perhaps 100 years from now, it’s still concensus and not always proof or “science”, per se. It’s not just ID, but UFO’s or other subjects or theory that scientists agree or disagree as being legitimate “science”. But the point is it’s fluid information! Squashing that exchange just because it threatens you and no more isn’t science, it’s fascism.
I can read hundreds of papers on a drug’s benefits and drawbacks and I can line up a group that swears the drug is safe, and a group that says it’s dangerous as hell, with each side calling the other side quacks, or the other’s works are flawed and STILL be no closer to so-called “proof” than I was when I knew nothing! Papers, no papers, it’s not the point! Papers don’t guarantee proof...just as I don’t need papers to convince me of proof that my parents love me!
One side could be getting some sort of unseen benefit from a certain pharmaceutical company say in a lawsuit in court!
I can’t find any papers proving scientifically that evolution is the only valid theory and thereby discounts ID or answers everything to my satisfaction either! I think THAT is the better question to ask!
Your website, your peers are just that, no one has appointed them, you or me or anyone else to define for all what science is or isn’t!
How would you expect to see so much proof everywhere, when as soon as the subject matter is presnted, it’s confronted with “but that’s not science”? How many scientists bring their bias into the equations to poison ID in it’s infancy?
Besides, no paper that answers your questions now may still do so later, but how would you ever know if it’s disallowed, not to mention discouraged from the science curriculum so early on in a child’s life?
Why live so fearfully that young children might somehow accept the idea that an explanation of no design unintelligent or otherwise, is simply scientifically insufficient as well?
Science IS insufficient! And hardly etched in stone!
BTW, I myself have submitted a paper concerning artificial insemination, surrogate egg, surrogate womb, and adoptive parents and thus the potential for a child having 10 (5 different sets of) grandparents and the complicated ethical aspects of all these technological implications we’ve developed with science and such non-traditional families....didn’t make the journal and I couldn’t tell you where that copy is now either.
That’s the thing about liberals “enlightening” others, much like science nothing is ever “proven” is it?
Perhaps an explanation regarding scientists like Newton that believed in God is in order?
Were they any less scientific or no longer scientists because they didn’t line up with your world view?