LOL. Well, I read all 4 essays, by Krauthammer, Gilson, Seldon, and Witt.
By far, Krauthammer's was the most intelligent and logical. However, that is my opinion, just as the converse might be yours. However, one passage from Gilson's essay is very significant:
ID is not about theology. It is a scientific proposition, whose proponents are putting it forth to be tested in the realm of science (see here under Origins). It is not fraudulent, because to be a fraud it would have to have a hidden agenda. In fact it is out there for anyone to see. Is it good science? Let time tell.
Just love it. Let time tell. OK, now I get a twofer, because I posted on this earlier.
ID has been around for 10 years now. In that time, how many scientific papers have been published on ID?? OK, Gilson, let time tell. 10 years, we should see something. How many references: ZERO.
Use Google to find “Entrez PubMed,” which will take you to a database of 15 million peer-reviewed publications in the primary scientific literature. The site, maintained by the National Library of Medicine, allows users to enter a search term and retrieve references to relevant publications.
For instance, enter “natural selection” in the search box and click “go”; about 14,000 references will be found. “Mutation” gets 40,000. “Speciation” gets 5,000. “Human origins” gets 22,000. “Behe intelligent design” gets … zero.
Some of my favorites:
Horse feces: 929 citations.
VooDoo: 78 citations.
Diaper RAsh: 475 citations. I really bust a gut with that one... LOL.
And intelligent design: ZERO
My point to Gilson and his comic group of fakes, whose credentials are the Discovery Institute (snicker) is that time has already told, sport. Game over.
It was the basic argument of Raymond Sebond's Natural Theology, published in the 1420's, the only difference being that he wasn't ashamed to name the Intelligent Designer as being the Christian God.
From an ID website:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163
See the website for the long answer. Ridiculing your debate opponents by calling them a comic group of fakes reduces your credibility, and the overall churlish tone also reduces your credibility. Too bad because you do make some good arguments.
The Short Answer:
Point A. Science is not done by committee. It does not matter that intelligent design is rarely found in the journals because as free-thinking responsible scientists, we must test a theory ourselves and see if it holds up and not judge a theory based upon its apparent lack of presence in mainstream journals, or even by the "popular opinion" of the scientific community.
Point B. ID proponents have published articles in peer reviewed science journals advocating their pro-design positions. Admittedly, these articles are rare. However, even if it does matter that intelligent design is scarcely found in mainstream peer reviewed journals, the counterpoint is that design is not excluded from the journals on the basis of its merits, but rather because of "new paradigm opposition." History of science has taught us that journals tend to exclude ideas which are radically opposed to current paradigms. Intelligent design is at odds with both the prevailing paradigm of biology today, evolution, as well as the prevailing mechanistic philosophy of science dominating origins science. Thus, exclusion of intelligent design is only to be expected, even if intelligent design is supported by evidence.
Point C. Though "opposition to new paradigms" plays a major role in the exclusion of design from journals, the exclusion is also the byproduct of a political controversy, which serves to instill misunderstandings about intelligent design theory in the minds of many scientists, who are misled to believe that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals. Misunderstandings about the theory itself--and not opposition to its evidential merits--play a very large role in its exclusion.
Point D. Actually, upon closer inspection, once one understands the predictions of intelligent design theory, it becomes clear that there is much data published in the journals already supporting intelligent design theory; researchers simply have not been inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to them.
Your full question should be spelled out. What you are asking is "how many scientific papers have been published in journals which have policies against publishing ID articles?"
Analogy: "Buddhists obviously can't sing because there aren't any Buddhists in the Baptist choir."