They say ID shuns peer review?

He claimed that there are no peer-reviewed papers which support ID, and furthermore he claimed that ID proponents seek to avoid peer review because they are not confident about their theories.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

That's a starting point.

I've never heard anyone talking about purposely "avoiding" peer review. What I have heard is of Darwinists within the system arbitrarily rejecting papers due to a connection to ID and not because a lack of quality or evidence. And of course there is the persecution that occurs, such as with Sternberg:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1864

http://www.rsternberg.net/index.htm

The guy that I was arguing with claimed that ID people want to circumvent the process of science by getting our science taught in schools before it's generally accepted by the science community.

Read this:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutScienceEducationPolicy

Even though that is Discovery's stance the US school system is set up where local school boards have control over their curriculum. Even if ID theorists disagree with the proposed content people are free to implement whatever they want...just beware of the ACLU.

If your opponent tries to make the asinine argument that ID proponents are trying to force ID onto others using the court system just ask this: name the case where the ID proponents are NOT the defendants. It's the Darwinists using the courts to force Darwinism onto people, not the other way around.

No sarcasm, please. :p

Oh, and I don't mind people discussing particular implications of ID but there isn't a reason to attack particular religious beliefs (yes, I'm pretty hypocritical when it comes to certain variants of atheism).

I've seen was one on why humans evolved without hair - because women preferred men with less hair.

Preposterous - next thing they will argue that the peacock's display of feathers came about as a result of pea-hens prefering mates with attractive plumage. It's obvious circular reasoning. It makes far more sense to assume that both human females and pea-hens were programmed by an Intelligent Designer or perhaps a divine creator with a set of preferences.

In the case of humans I believe that we are in some way created in the form of the intelligent designer and that our preferences give us a clue as to what form that designer may take, this intelligent designer our original creator must have the most ideal of forms.

But please do not take my words on face value, check out what the evolutionists have to say:

Pagel and Bodmer argue that parasites exert those selective forces. Mammalian fur is an ideal habitat for fleas, ticks and lice, which drain host resources and spread disease. But, for a mammal to rid itself of its protective covering and its unwanted passengers, it must devise a better way of regulating body temperature. And that, say the two scientists, is just what humans did when they harnessed fire and started wearing clothes, which, unlike fur, can be changed and laundered, making them far less parasite-friendly.

One of the most attractive features of the parasite-reduction hypothesis is its testability. Racial differences in body hair, for example, are expected to reflect geographical variations in parasite prevalence. But parasite reduction via technological innovation is only half the story, say Pagel and Bodmer. They point to the plethora of products, such as razors/waxes/lotions/electrodes that are used for shaving / plucking / bleaching / dissolving / electrolyzing hair from our eyebrows / legs / chests / bikini lines/backs as evidence that Darwin's sexual selection theory was on target. "We humans don't seem to like hair very much," says Pagel. ( The Scientist )

So the evolutionists seem to think that the reason we lack fur is that there was no selective pressure to keep fur - mankind evolved a better way of keeping warm.

This of course is a truly preposterous idea: We know that evolution (if it did exist) would take a very long time - mankind has only existed for approximately 6000 years, and would not have had time to evolve such a trait. And where do the evolutionists propose that mankind learnt the knowledge of how to hunt and skin animals?

Last time I looked they deny the story of the Garden of Eden which is the only credible explanation for the origin of Man's intelligence that would be required for the evolution they propose to have occurred.

If anyone knows of others, please chime in.

Well, there is Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design at http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php. Although, it does appear to be on hiatus.

I think a more useful tactic for the ID movement would be to publish a list of ID papers submitted to mainstream journals that were rejected. As collegial as the ID community is, surely such a list must exist informally. Why not put it out there for the public to see? As interesting as Expelled may be, it will ultimately be seen as an advocacy piece, only dissimilar from Michael Moore's work by the starting perspective. If it comes down to the science, show the public the reems of papers that have been rejected by the big biology journals.