Not circular at all. The fact they aren't accepted by the mainstream of science means they are fringe. You can argue all day why they aren't accepted; but that doesn't change the fact.
The editorial boards on these peer-reviewed journals don't even consider accepting ID papers and then make the argument that because there are no papers on ID in the "regular scientific literature" that the science is not legitimate.
You can of course document this by posting copies of editorial decisions making such statements. Can't you?
I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand that you certainly have vested interests and ideology to protect and alternative viewpoints are not in your best interest. This is the problem with science. There is so much investment in the system that there is a distinct unwillingness to investigate or even seriously consider concepts that could challenge the status quo. It endangers the whole franchise of recognition, book sales, seminars, tenure, research grants and so on and so forth. Why rock the boat when so much is at stake? Not only that, but let's deny any recognition or credibility to anything that endangers the franchise.
What we have then, is science defined within a narrow set of acceptable parameters. Research and new concepts are fine as long as they do not fall outside the range of what is acceptable to those people holding the purse strings of the franchise.
The evolution franchise is a big one and there is a lot invested in it. This is what I find so disturbing about the AAAS position. Whether you want to call scientists who question evolution "fringe" or not, why would you want to deny the free flow of ideas other than to keep the franchise rolling? Be careful when you start censoring ideas, because as mainstream as you think you may be, you may find yourself on the outside looking in at some point and not like the position you are in.
Keep in mind, also, that I went through the university system with a strong belief in evolution as a fact and it is only lately I have come to the conclusion through my own research and inquiry that there are severe problems with the evolutionary viewpoint. I, however, am a consulting geologist involved in day-to-day application of the science and am not in academia, so I have less invested in these concepts from a career perspective. That may give me a somewhat different viewpoint than yourself, nevertheless, I think it is hard to deny censorship of ideas is really what is going on here.