The long answer [if you follow the link I gave you] will give a more in-depth explanation.
You posted a very long link that on first scan appears to justify the lack of peer-reviewed ID science by crying prejudice.
In any case, I didn't ask for a long treatise on the lack of ID science.
I asked for a single piece of ID science.
And even without the long explanation, it's their words vs your words. And I believe that it would be reasonable to trust IDEA more than I trust a random user on a random board.
Why would you trust either of us without examining the evidence? The evidence matters, not the authority - you evidently have much to learn about science.
And even with everything you mentioned, you're still turning this into an evidence debate, more specifically an example debate.
No, I'm not. You've claimed that "ID is not science" is an "abusive assumption". I'm asking for a single piece of ID science to show that the assumption is false.
You want to maintain that in the history of ID, no one has treated it in a proper scientific way, and that all of these scientists, despite their credentials, have misrepresented science. Now that is abusive.
I don't care about credentials or history. I want a single piece of ID science shown to me. Since you represent ID as having a valuable history and valuable members, surely you can come up with a single example of ID science?
Even if you're right on these two [edit: two examples you brought up in your post], these are only two examples.
I'm confused - what two examples are you talking about? I didn't give you any examples in my last post.
Through all of this evidence I was hoping to give you a broad perspective of what ID had really become.
Not meant to be rude, but: I'm not sure you know what evidence is. You've given lots of websites talking in general terms about the existence of evidence, but you haven't given any evidence. In science primary literature is the name of the game - it doesn't appear that it exists for ID.
And it's silly to think that this whole scientific controversy and all of its venues were based off of an unscientific theory.
Actually, that's precisely why the controversy exists - because a group is claiming that they have a scientific theory when they do not. If it was scientific, it would be published in scientific literature, but it is not. I believe it was you who started a topic pointing out that the scientific literature published a paper demonstrating a newly discovered way that Mendel's Laws, the foundation of genetics, are violated - so I don't see how you can complain that only dogma makes it into the scientific literature.
Finally, if you recall you called one of my statements abusive and false ("PCID journal mentioned is peer-reviewed by IDers only, is published only on-line, and only contains theoretical/philosophical and/or review papers.")
I showed all parts of it were true. Perhaps you should ask yourself why PCID
claims to publish hard science but does not do so. Perhaps you should ask yourself whether ISCID and those that cite ISCID as a valid scientific organization are honest, or are simply generating propaganda.
I have been completely civil with you. Do you apologize for essentially calling me an abusive liar?
If not, then it is
you who is being abusive.
™ Version 4.2