>>And there is the group think. You can’t publish on intelligent design because no “reputable” scientific source wants to hear the competing theory.<<
OK — provide a competing theory that meets all (heck any) criteria of a Scientific Theory. I ave invited you to do so several times.
As I said, if you can do so you will be the first to do so in 200 years and you will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice...
One of the best scientific minds of all time, but today's evo-idiots would say he's unscientific.
Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific? Here's a good article, describing why the claims that Intelligent Design is not "scientific" fails miserably.
"Centuries ago the church was the ultimate authority, and dissenters from orthodoxy were excommunicated and punished for their supposed heresy. But science and the church have reversed positions in modern times, and secularized scientific institutions now have the upper hand. Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago." - conclusion from the above link.