frrostedman wrote:Ask any modern-day scientist who ever published an article in a scientifc journal, merely entertaining the idea of intelligent design. Career: over.
Scientists--if they want to be taken seriously by the "community"--dare not tread in certain waters. They're simply off-limits.
There absolutely is a predisposition and bias in the scientific community and anything or anyone outside their circle of trust is labeled "fringe" and marginalized. It's not to say those outside the circle can't speak to an audience anymore, they just can't get funded and their hypotheses fall on deaf ears and don't get published, etc.
Intelligent design claims usually aren't scientific, that's why. Most often they follow none of the principles of science.
The Vatican states intelligent design is not science:http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 600273.htm
A judge ruling stating such, also:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns ... nt-design/
If it's actual science, even fringe claims get published, although they may be ruthlessly attacked.
One can certainly attack certain claims of evolution, and there have been published articles doing just that. The debate over the mechanisms of evolution still rages on today, many of the claims being extremely controversial and going very much against the grain, but they get published as they are scientific claims.
Even parapsychologists have had articles published in respected journals because, although complete bunk in my view, it is still science. Bad science is more likely to get published than no science at all, and that's why ID, for the most part, is a non-starter. There have been published, peer-reviewed articles supporting ID, though, so it is possible, it just has to be done right, which is rarely the case as intelligent design claims are supernatural at heart.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris