Saedon,

As you know, or at least should know, peer-review has become a very politicized process, not just for I.D., but for all non-mainstream scientific views. Casey Luskin has an excellent articleoutstanding article, heavily burrowed from a paper by physicist Frank Tipler, which details this, including direct quotes from multiple Nobel Prize winners on the deep flaws of the peer-review process. Even if the journal's referees, themselves, would be willing to publish pro-I.D. research, the fear of backlash  even boycotts  directed towards both themselves and their journals, surely prevents them from doing so.

You must understand, when dealing with intelligent design, we're dealing with something that causes nothing less than embarrassing, childish, outrageous, emotional outbursts from its detractors, including many scientists (the Bloggingheads incident comes to mind, where many scientists attempted to boycott Bloggingheads simply because they allowed Michael Behe on to discuss his views). These detractors, of course, include many Wikipedia contributors. I strongly suspect that includes you, which is I why you make such a suspect editor regarding this subject, and why none of my words, as reasonable as they may be, will have any effect on dogmatic thinking.

With all of this said, the Discovery Institute keeps a page archiving the many pro-I.D. articles which have been able to penetrate the politicized wall of orthodoxy that has sullied the peer-review process. The number is currently over 50, and continually growing.

Of course, once the objection that I.D. has no peer-reviewed publications in support of it has been met, the goalposts will be moved to the claim that, (a) they're not good enough, (b) there's not enough, or (c) a combination of a and b. Casey Luskin, again, has fantastic article, entitled "Answering Objections about Discovery Institute's Peer-Review Page," that addresses some of these goalpost shifts (this is the part where you ignore the arguments and attack Casey Luskin the person).

Let me also add that every paper which further unveils a level of sophistication in the cell, more design principles, function for something once thought to be junk, etc., weighs support to the notion that life was designed, and that the Darwinian view is based on ignorance. A couple of articles which come to mind are James A. Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering, which shows that evolution is the programmed result of the brilliantly designed technology located inside the cell, and Michael Sherman's Universal Genome theory, a view which demonstrates that evolution was a front-loaded event (read: evolution was programmed).