"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.
There have been articles containing that info on FR.
"Your description of ID is quite faulty."
My description is accurate. The "hole" you mention is that the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the observed phenominon. That hole is an artifact of faulty science, not anything real.
"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."
The "correspondence to design" is as bogus as the hole. The hole says the laws of physics fail to account for the observations and requires one to abandon them. It's in the abandonment of the laws of physics, that "correspondence to design" is conjured up. There's also no difference between an arbitrary designer and an arbitrary diety. Arbitrary is the keyword and anything can be molded to fit, just as everything after the abandonment of physics is.
" A design inference requires both parts to be true, not just the former as you indicate."
Wrong. All of these design inferences are obtained by first admitting failure and claiming it is impossible to ever know and understand the matter with physical laws. The inference which is probably true, is that errors were made in the original anlysis. A declaration must be made that they are insufficiennt to govern the world. Then, those same laws must be used to construct and develope the "design" claim. It's not science, it's the art of the con.
"You seem to think that teleologic arguments are excluded a priori."
Design requires a sentient being. The laws of physics are not a sentient being. They also do not contain "purpose". Also, no sentient being can be demonstrated, or examined by science.
"it is looked at as invalid if purpose is ever taken into account in those experiments themselves as a potential causitive term."
Causation is an action. Define and quantify purpose. Write down the equation for the "purpose field". How is this "purpose field" coupled to the energy field. How is this "purpose field" coupled to the stress-energy tensor, since it appears in addiiton to it?