Peer Reviewed Intelligent Design?

The criticisms in most of the previous answers are incorrect. There are plenty of publishers and journals in that list which are well respected by the scientific community. The article makes that point quite well.

Not but one article could be said to be peer reviewed. About par for the ID course. Did you think to fool scientists?

ID proponents having their work published in reputable journals would have their evidence brought to the same examination as everyone else; that is why they can not publish in reputable journals.

Because of those criticisms, ID'er try to trick people into thinking that they have published in "peer-reviewed" scientific journals.

They use several tactics to do this:

1) that invent their own scientific journals and call them peer-reviewed, but they are really only reviewed by other ID'er who agree and want ID junk published,

2) they refer to conference abstracts and meeting proceedings as peer-reviewed, which they may be, but these things are not generally CRITICALLY reviewed, and

3) They play word games with the definition of "peer reviewed." For example if you write an article or a book, and your best friend (who also agrees with everything you say) reviews it, you can technically call that peer-reviewed - but that is not the same thing as having it critically reviewed by other experts in your field of study - this is what true scientific peer-review process is.

If you go to the Disc Inst website, I think you will find that no articles that support ID have been published in LEGITIMATE, CRITICALLY peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC journals.

There is a good reason for this - BECAUSE ID IS NOT SCIENCE; it's creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing.

Yes, the modern way to express scientific ideas is through peer-reviews journals. Trade shows, conferences, etc are simply for getting the main ideas out, but the meat of science is in the journals. One thing you see in almost all ID writings is that they are mostly directed towards lay people, not towards scientists. Instead of allowing their ideas to be freely criticized, with an oportunity to respond, they usually ignore the rebuttals of other scientists and go for the lecture circuit. This shows they really aren't interested in the science, but want the popularity of proposing ideas that appeal to the masses but don't have any substance.

Notice none of these articles are featured in reputable science literature such as 'Nature' or 'Science'. If you want an article to be known and peer reviewed properly they need to be featured in a least one major journal.

When I see Intelligent Design articles in Nature, that is when I will take it seriously as a scientific theory.

Actually there's nothing in science that proves we were not created by a higher power using an intelligent design. One who watches over us today.

All science says is that, if they exist, they started the process with a Bang 13 billion years ago, and used evolution (not necessarily Darwinian) as a part of the design.

Intelligent Design is like string theory, in that it's a description of reality that is difficult or impossible to prove, and if true doesn't really change anything. It's nice to describe the universe with a one-size fits all theory, but type of practical advantage do we gain by proving that either is true? I like ID, some of it's claims are hard to refute, but all in all it's kinda useless.

The is one of my main problems with the concept of peer review. It allows proponents to reinforce existing doctrine, even when it is as unlikely as that "theory" happens to be.

That's why they started their own journal and called it 'peer-reviewed'. However, the influence of a journal is not only measured in whether it is peer-reviewed, but also by how many times it is cited in other peer-review journals. And that one won't be.

ID is not science - its just stupid religious propaganda developed by idiots who want to ram their narrow views down everyone else's throat.