[RadioAstronomer]

Why? And please, be specific. Cite ID papers, give me quotes, references, anything. It shouldn't be hard since I'm sure you've read the literature, right? :) I'll be waiting.

I think you have that backwards. I do not see ID papers in mainstream journals. You cite them in peer reviewed mainstream journals and I will be glad to read them.

[ThinkPlease]

I think you have that backwards. I do not see ID papers in mainstream journals. You cite them in peer reviewed mainstream journals and I will be glad to read them.

Dang, you beat me to it. ;-)

[Exnihilo]

Very nice non-answer. Thank you.

[mrustow]

Why? And please, be specific. Cite ID papers, give me quotes, references, anything. It shouldn't be hard since I'm sure you've read the literature, right? :) I'll be waiting.

I think you have that backwards. I do not see ID papers in mainstream journals. You cite them in peer reviewed mainstream journals and I will be glad to read them.

Your attitude is most unscientific. "Peer reviewed" journals publish that which repeats academic dogma or fashion; they will rarely publish views challenging academic dogma. In 1995, for example, tenured professors of sociology would ingratiate themselves to their peers, by standing up at faculty meetings, and bragging of not having read Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.