The irony is too delicious to pass up. If there is any censorship going on here it is clearly censorship of ID. You say they have published no peer reviewed papers but when someone does publish in a scientific journal they are immediately ostracized.
Further, you have a fixation w/ the so-called 'wedge" document but frankly I don't see it as a challenge to the regular practice of science at all. There is no call for outlawing "materialistic science" its merely a call for an alternative approach to science that could compete, possibly, in the world of ideas.
If the theories that come out of a science "consonant w/ Christian theology" don't hold water scientifically, by any measure, then they should be discarded, but to reject the concept out of hand is simply intellectual bias.
Afterall, if God did create the universe and everything, then a science that purposely looks the other way could be missing a lot.
Uh, read on what they say is their goal.
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Science does not operate that way. Science is open to all possibilities.
You and Discovery.org, OTOH, close your eyes to all evidence that conflicts with your personal beliefs.
Are you naive or dishonest?
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
If you want to find out the potential for censorship, just look at the various creation "science" organizations on the web, and see what their approach to science is. Here is a typical one:
Tenets of Scientific Creationism of the Institute for Creation ResearchIf this group, or those who believe as they do, were to be put in charge of science, I do believe censorship would be the result.
- The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
- The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
- The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
- The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
- Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
- The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
- Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
- Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.
The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy" outlines the way they intend to replace materialistic science with theistic science. (And it isn't through scientific research.)
Your scientific creationism theory of a young earth doesn't hold water scientifically. You should discard it.
Why would you think that all ideas have the same weight as a scientific theory? Until ID goes through the same selection process as the many fields of science it is simply not up to snuff.
If we were to equally consider all ideas then we would have to give equal weight to Astrology, Homeopathy, Crystal power, Pyramid power, and every kook who thinks he has developed free energy from Rice Crispies. There is an idea 'filter' which eliminates junk from science to keep bad ideas from taking up valuable time and effort. ID may become, sometime in the future, a science on par with chemistry (or others) but it hasn't made it there yet.