I read their comments before. They didn't focus on the scientific merits either. Controversy was their consideration.
"What about the president of the BSW who reviewed the peer review file and said that, scientifically, the paper was justified in being published?"
Procedure was followed, that's all the pres. can claim, because the paper itself is junk science.
"Are all of these people part of a mass conspiracy to prevent science from occurring?"
ID isn't science.
Proof:
ID uses the laws of physics to make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says, "the result of the calculation can't explain the observaitons."
There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:
1) The model is missing some -knowledge and understanding(of physics)
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an unknown arbitrary force.
Take your choice:
The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science and hire a shaman to conjure up the arbitrary force(s), else they are and you stick with science, admit ignorance and work harder.
"I read their comments before."
You did? And where did you get access to this document? I don't believe it's open to the public.
"Procedure was followed, that's all the pres. can claim, because the paper itself is junk science."
The president examined the peer-review file, and established that everything was in order.
Your description of ID is quite faulty. The problem is not that ID finds any hole X in the theory, and at that point inserts a random diety. Instead, what happens is that ID finds a hole X in the theory, where that hole corresponds exactly to how designers normally operate, and therefore infers that the most rational explanation that we know of so far is that there was a designer involved. A design inference requires both parts to be true, not just the former as you indicate.
You seem to think that teleologic arguments are excluded a priori. How can science discount its own workings? Is not science itself purpose-driven? The entire operation of science is by people making purpose-driven experiments, yet it is looked at as invalid if purpose is ever taken into account in those experiments themselves as a potential causitive term.