[Doctor Stochastic]

Until a few days ago," he says, "Darwinists have argued that intelligent design isn't science because it hasn't been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Meyer is wrong (either from ignorance or mendacity) here. ID isn't published (much) in peer-reviewed journals because it isn't science. Meyer's article in PBSW is a good example; the critiques of this article show why it isn't science but rather polemics sans foundation. If Meyer can't stand the criticism, he should leave the kitchen.

[r9etb]

ID isn't published (much) in peer-reviewed journals because it isn't science.

What, in your view, is necessary for something to be "science?"

[Sam Cree]

Forgive me for intruding, but are there ID proponents who are not approaching the question from a religious viewpoint?