If you look, there ARE peer-reviewed publications that support Intelligent design. There’s no “suppression” of thought there.
What does happen is when fringe ID extremists try and contradict Nobel-winning, repeatable, and seminal works.
The work of Roderick MacKinnon, Lily Jan, Carol Deutch all demonstrate a simple, yet elegant pattern of sequence homology and molecular evolution of voltage-gated potassium ion channels. Rod MacKinnon won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2003. Lily Jan developed a survival assay based on the expression of potassium ion channels, which provides direct evidence that selective mutation can enhance or inhibit survival.
E.R. Kandel, Paul Greengard, again two Nobel-winning scientists who discovered phosphorylation mediated learning and memory in Aplysia califorincalis. This discovery started the analysis of the kinase enzyme, for which 3% of most genomes code for. Evolution at its finest.
Richard Axel and Linda buck discovered the multigene family of the odor receptors, and their subsequent work demonstrated evidence for pseudogenes, gene-choice patterning, and the evolution of that receptor multigene family. Odor receptors across species display amazing variation, yet have almost totally conserved critical amino acid residues in the transmembrane domains and binding pockets. Buck and Axel won the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology in 2004.
A 2005 Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of RNA interference, which demonstrated even mutated genes can produce RNA strands that will hybridize with, and inhibit functioning genes and “silence” them.
It was directly demonstrated that wide genetic variability enhances survival of brine shrimp in high salinity. Also, the injection of a viral vector containing a Hox gene into a chick embryo caused the beak to develop serrated teeth, much like their raptor ancestors.
There is an ENTIRE 3 terabtye web database of protein and DNA sequence that does “cluster” and sequence analysis. You can literally scan through the various protein domains in enzymes of different species, and see the changes that have occurred over time.
Most ID extremists wouldn’t even know these critical works, and selectively cherry pick known gaps in Evolutionary theory to attack. I could go on literally for weeks and weeks. The moral is that when you decide to directly contradict these and other seminal and Nobel-winning works, you had better provide some direct and extremely compelling evidence. When you willy-nilly contradict people who have had their data repeated over and over and over again, it makes you look incompetent, and of course why would you be given tenure?