Why is intelligent design a forbidden topic of discussion in science journals?

Answer 1

It's not "forbidden" at all! Purely and simply, science is not monolithic and does not have some kind of supreme court or board of magistrates that determines what can and can't be discussed.

Many scientific journals do address the topic to show how it fails even the most basic tests as a valid hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. And before anyone leaps on the word "theory", please remember that in the scientific world "theory" does NOT mean some kind of guess. It means a testable, reproducible explanation of observable events. (For example, if the theory of gravity is just a guess, would you feel free to walk out of a second-floor window??)

The other reason it's addressed by serious scientists is that there has to be a better understanding of why so many people continue to believe in ID despite its many contradictions and gaps, and how to correct the many misunderstandings of scientific research by the general public.

But no reasonable scientific journal would subscribe to the "equal time" argument because all ideas are NOT created equal; e.g. should a journal discuss the green cheese hypothesis of lunar formation, or the lagomorphic origin of eggs at Easter, simply because a certain fraction of the population believe them? Similarly, no journal would ascribe any validity to the notion of irreducible complexity because it is neither verifiable nor reproducible, but is instead simply a high-class way of saying "I don't understand X or Y so God must be responsible."