Dave Kimber cites the "Sternberg" controversy as a case for prejudice against the publication of intelligent design research papers in established peer-reviewed journals (Letters, 2 October). The journal in question maintains that the paper was outside the scope of its normal content, so why publish it?
The Discovery Institute, the major proponent of intelligent design creationism, should tell us how many papers it submits for conventional peer review to established science journals and the reasons offered for rejection. It does tell us of its success when it does get articles published, but still claims unfair repression of its "research". I would be happy to accept intelligent design into the realm of science if and when the evidence shows that it is science, which would of course mean having to rewrite our definition of what science is, to include the supernatural.
Others who have had their ideas rejected initially by the scientific community have, with good evidence, robust and rigorous research, subsequently had their ideas accepted. I merely ask for intelligent design to do the same.
James D. Williams, Lecturer in science education Sussex School of Education University of Sussex.
