I had read the paper when it first came out and knew that it did not address the major issue in the question of whether ID research is being unfairly suppressed. Flaws in the peer review process cannot affect papers that do not exist or are never submitted for review. Nor can it be said that the review process is wrong to reject papers of low quality. It must also be acknowledged that it is not unusual for papers to be rejected - many papers go through a series of submissions before being accepted (especially those submitted to
Science and
Nature, which have very high rejection rates).
On rereading it it seem that Tipler has a bad case of sour grapes. What little he says about the papers you appear to mean does not convince me of their quality - quite the reverse. Indeed it sounds to me as if Tipler is failing to distinguish between proof and speculation - and religious apologetics.
quote:
...he was nearly denied tenure and was denied grants because of his ID or creationist stances, in physics though, not biology.
That is seriously confused. Firstly the risk to tenure he mentions is simply a lack of grants, so to list the two as separate is misleading. Secondly Tipler only cites one reviewer as being concerned about his views - and those were his views on extra-terrestrial intelligence, not ID. We can't tell from that little anecdote how important that concern was, or even if other reviewers shared it (nor how it relates to the grants). And to top it all Tipler attribute the reviewers attitude to papers (plural) that were published. If the peer review process is so badly broken, how did that happen ?