Unless one believes ID to be a legitimate scientific theory, that ID "evidence" is peer-reviewed by the "correct" publications is irrelevant; the crux of the leap that IDers take from observation to inference is in principle unverifiable, and depends solely upon the cogency of their reasons for associating natural processes with a super intelligence that has, by an act of volition, played an essential role in constructing physical reality.
It's not necessarily a knock that this theory lacks scientifically peer-reviewed research, since it is not a scientific theory. It's an ill-conceived theological hypothesis that embraces scientific ideas to the extent that a respectable edifice can appear to support some extravagant dogmas; a set of antiscientific doctrines hidden behind the vague language of a superintelligence whose identity is restricted to the abstraction and negation of our most primitive psychological features.
ID doesn't belong in science journals. But this is no cause for concern, nor can it be a criticism ---unless one is under the misguided assumption that it purports to represent a scientific perspective.
It's not necessarily a knock that this theory lacks scientifically peer-reviewed research, since it is not a scientific theory. It's an ill-conceived theological hypothesis that embraces scientific ideas to the extent that a respectable edifice can appear to support some extravagant dogmas; a set of antiscientific doctrines hidden behind the vague language of a superintelligence whose identity is restricted to the abstraction and negation of our most primitive psychological features.
ID doesn't belong in science journals. But this is no cause for concern, nor can it be a criticism ---unless one is under the misguided assumption that it purports to represent a scientific perspective.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
