ID is simply "modern" Creationism attempting to market itself as "science", rather than purely religion - in short, the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Note that this is generally more vague in that it claims the existence of a "supreme being", but technically refrains from specifying which one; however, its proponents usually believe that the alleged "supreme being" is the God of Christianity.
In fact, many of ID's advocates come from a Creationist background; the creationists had suffered significant legal defeats a few decades ago in their push to get Creationism taught in public education (the courts correctly ruled it would violate the Establishment Clause), and they needed a new banner to carry. So you see, both movements are essentially identical in their agendas, but ID has gotten somewhat smarter in basing arguments on "natural science" instead of theology. For example, an integral concept is "irreducible complexity" - the argument that life is so complex that it could not have developed by evolution at all, and requires a "designer".
On to peer review -
To get published in a respected scientific journal is famously difficult, and you can imagine why, given that the journals must be able to withstand the harshest scrutiny if they are to remain trustworthy. A scientist's work is sent out to several experts of that field to assess the work's validity (e.g., if the procedure used to conduct the experiment has any errors).
To date, no ID paper has ever been published in any respected journal. ID proponents usually prefer to cry foul and accuse the scientific community of academic discrimination (a very cowardly excuse, considering Darwin himself managed to get his works published at a time when most academics were creationists).
In contrast, we have plenty of publications addressing the physical evidence for evolution. Quoting Judge Jones in his 2005 ruling for Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was
questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would
never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune
system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed
publications, nine books, and several immunology text-
book chapters about the evolution of the immune system;
however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient
evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"
It's a fairly complex question that requires a few explanations. Not all journals are created equal, so there are varying levels of respectability. To get published in a scientific journal, most articles go through a peer-review process (refereeing) where the study/article/letter/etc. is reviewed by other professionals in the field. The reviewers search for flaws in study, methodology, presentation, experiment, etc. Some journals have higher standards than others, better methods of peer-review, etc.
Intelligent Design articles have not had much luck getting through the peer-review process of the more reputable journals (those who have historically had a high standard of excellence). There are examples of ID articles in less reputable journals, but they are rare as you crawl up the list of the more respectable science journals available. You can find some ID articles in pro-design journals, but again, the number of articles are rare and the reputation of the journals are generally not high.
Part of the problem is that ID does not make many refutable, testable claims and getting into a "respected" journal does not make an idea right. Many of the the things published in journals must often be revised, edited or are just wrong for a variety of reasons. The fact that there are few ID articles published is a bad sign indeed considering the sad state of some articles I have come across on other subjects.
I generally do not mention this particular problem with I.D. as there are far more important reasons for rejecting the idea, but it is relevant in certain instances.
Hope this helps as well!
Intelligent design is sleight-of-hand creationism. It shows exactly how slimy these folks are. Professing to be decent xtians (at least the 99.9% that demographers say they are. What's the 0.1% ? Long term rubber room tenants ?), yet claiming that ID is science and not religion, they are prepared to distort, manipulate, misquote, misrepresent and disregard reality, and are quite happy to lie with straight faces to a judge (in other words, commit perjury) -
In his ruling on the Dover case, U.S. Judge John E. Jones III said it was "ironic" that individuals who "proudly touted their religious convictions in public" would "lie" under oath.
Yes, ironic - at the very least. But also sinful according to the 9th Commandment.
What's ironic is that Judge John E. Jones III is a staunch conservative that was appointed by Dubya Bush as part of the overall judiciary stacking over the tenure of his presidency.
"Peer Review" entails extensive reference cross-checks, validation of citations and reproduction of experimental procedures conducted if necessary. ID has obvious problems here, but apparently, none that cannot be overcome given sufficient shouting, invective, tantrum throwing and calling in of favours from politicians.
As for the insiduousness of the ID people, here is an excellent example which just happens to be about peer review -
Given a quick skim, there doesn't seem to be to much amiss here, but it is actually a well thought out piece of propaganda from an innocuous sounding website being used as a "front" by the god freaks. Re-read it carefully, and it reeks. The last paragraph is a dead giveaway -
Intelligent design peer-reviewed publications are becoming more common. There are many objective studies that have been done which point towards design theory. Scientists are beginning to admit that they often interpret data assuming that an established theory is true, and assume other results are in error. Once they look at them without that assumption, they often see supporting evidence for something else. Many pro-ID works have been referenced in other publications, usually positively. It may take time for the paradigm to shift, but eventually evolutionists will have to stop being angry at the conclusions and face up to the science behind them.
Which is a shame for them really. All that time and effort to appear legitimate, but they simply can't keep all that wholesome dumbness bottle up and some of it leaks out.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to verify this -
The real tragedy is that the credulous are being churned out of our already degraded education systems at ever higher levels, and are extremely unlikely to do any fact checking of any kind. They will accept AllAboutScience.org exactly as presented, no questions asked.
The only ID article ever to have been published in a legitimate publication is the one mentioned in the allaboutscience.org article. It was in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington by Stephen C. Meyer (who, coincidentally is the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director). The article was almost immediately withdrawn upon publication. Though the paper was only a literature review, even so it was shown to have circumvented acceptable peer review practice. [link]
In a nutshell: ID is about lying, cheating, manipulating, blackmailing, ballot stacking, threatening teachers careers, breeding hatred amongst the ultra-believing and last but not least, corrupting the political process in order to achieve their own ends. None of this would be necessary if they actually had any facts to begin with.