In terms of establishing a scientific basis for their ideas, to get into the debate they have to follow the established scientific norms (presentations at scientific meetings, papers in scientific journals). If they don't, then isn't a matter of them being "allowed in the debate"; they are operationally excluding themselves.
Science operates according to one basic method: you put your data and conclusions on the table for everyone to see and potentially cut to pieces. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Behe, Wells, Dembski and Johnson (and other less notable lights) haven't even tried to get into the kitchen.
(I might be watching too much Iron Chef.)
Apparently, they don't. Their ideas are getting out anyway. You can find them all over the Internet. What could it hurt? Evaluate them for yourself!
We'd love to hear back from you.
That's the ideal, I agree. But unfortunately that's not the way it always works, either in science or politics. Dissent is often not tolerated and woe be to the graduate student who selects a doctoral thesis that is at odds with the beliefs of the majority of the department.