Saedon  As you know or at least should know peerreview has become a very politicized process not just for ID but for all nonmainstream 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 peerreview process Even if the journals referees themselves would be willing to publish proID 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 were 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 proID articles which have been able to penetrate the politicized wall of orthodoxy that has sullied the peerreview process The number is currently over  and continually growing  Of course once the objection that ID has no peerreviewed publications in support of it has been met the goalposts will be moved to the claim that a theyre not good enough b theres not enough or c a combination of a and b Casey Luskin again has fantastic article entitled Answering Objections about Discovery Institutes PeerReview 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 Shapiros Natural Genetic Engineering which shows that evolution is the programmed result of the brilliantly designed technology located inside the cell and Michael Shermans Universal Genome theory a view which demonstrates that evolution was a frontloaded event read evolution was programmed