One of the significant criticisms leveled against Intelligent Design is ID shouldn't be considered a valid form of scientific inquiry because ID proponents haven't published any articles in any peer reviewed journals.1. Of course, this isn't true (e.g. see here). ID proponents have published articles in scientific journals. Sure, it hasn't been a huge amount, but there have been enough and enough notable instances to qualify.
2. In any case, it seems to me the climate in academia toward ID is extremely hostile. Take the case of Richard Sternberg. Or several other examples in the movie Expelled.
In fact, I'd think it's arguably similar enough to the climate toward democracy in modern China. If this is true, then it's amazing any ID articles have been published at all!
And, if this is true, then it's a bit unfair of ID-critics to allege, on the one hand, that ID hasn't published any peer reviewed articles, but, on the other hand, attempt to keep them from publishing peer reviewed articles.
Such behavior strikes me as duplicitous. If so, then it, in itself, would seem to be further evidence of suppression.
3. Doubtless those who suppress ID don't see it this way. Rather, if it is suppression, they'd probably argue it's akin to suppressing the teaching of astrology. What's wrong with suppressing teaching astrology to students at major universities?
Of course, given postmodernism including its overvaluation of tolerance, its insistence on tolerance of all viewpoints at any cost, how can any such university consistently suppress teaching anything, really?
More importantly, how do we know astrology is bunk? Because of poor evidence, poor arguments, contradictory science, and so forth.
But ID hardly fits into these categories. At a minimum, ID makes reasonable arguments. One might not agree with the arguments, but the arguments aren't on par with arguments for astrology.
4. The best way to debunk ID is to engage and debunk their arguments. However, many if not most major academic institutions seek to silence ID before the arguments are even presented.
Let's grant (arguendo) ID is mistaken. Even so, such an absolutist attitude coupled with authoritarian strongarm measures to suppress ID at major academic institutions is more poisonous to academia than ID ever could be.
