[dmz]

Quite simply: Is irreducible complexity part of the scientific dissent to the theory of evolution that “evolutionists” are stifling?

followup: where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?

Why am I picking out irreducible complexity of all things? The article you posted, in paragraph 6, uses the irreducible complexity argument in favor of ID and against evolution. Where’s the science to demonstrate this?

The upshot: You mentioned, specifically, that it was scientific dissent that was being stifled. I’m wondering if you really mean that some philosophical arguments against evolution are being kept out of the classroom (read: being stifled).

[dan1123]

Quite simply: Is irreducible complexity part of the scientific dissent to the theory of evolution that “evolutionists” are stifling?

Ah, a perfect circle.

1. The scientific establishment claims that all science must be from peer-reviewed articles.
2. They refuse to publish and/or fire anyone who considers ID.
3. Since no peer-reviewed papers exist (thanks to step 2), they declare ID not "science".

So the ultimate answer is that something is not science because the scientific community doesn't want it to be. (for earlier examples see the Big Bang Theory, J Harlen Bretz, and the Copernican Revolution.)

Of course, this has been the standard operating procedure of science for a very long time, as evidenced by Max Planck's quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[count-your-change]

“followup: where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?”

You might try these:

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

[tacticalogic]

The article you posted, in paragraph 6, uses the irreducible complexity argument in favor of ID and against evolution. Where’s the science to demonstrate this?

Add to that the tacit assertion that ID and evolution must be mutually exclusive.

[Diamond]

where can one read a peer reviewed, scientific article on irreducible complexity?

You're about nine years out of date. Lament the fact all you want, but IC is officially part of the peer reviewed scientific lexicon:

Thornhill, R.H., Ussery, D.W. 2000. "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." J. Theor. Bio. 203: 111-116.

Cordially,