I understand with your point, Joshua, and to some extent sympathize. I would not say that every argument advanced in Evolution News and Views columns is of equal scientific quality, and I could see how a reader, happening to stumble across one of the weaker columns, might well suspect the scientific quality of DI as an organization.
This is a problem inherent when science (or any human activity) is done by advocacy organizations rather than by individuals. When an argument (scientific, philosophical, historical, etc.) is made by an individual, one only has to deal with that argument offered by that individual; one doesn’t have to pass judgment on arguments made by others. Things are clearer.
I have had the same problem with BioLogos. Often I found myself in agreement with statements made there, e.g., Genesis 1-11 are not meant as on-the-spot news reports, and that evolutionary change has occurred. But the ethos of BioLogos was such that if one accepted that, one was also under pressure to accept a lot of other stuff that I did not accept, e.g., that God gave nature “freedom” to co-create with him, or that natural theology was bad theology, or that God would never directly create something nasty like malaria and so malaria had to be an evolutionary accident, or that evolution could just as well have spit out more intelligent octopuses and God would have been happy with that, or that design arguments regarding nature are in principle impossible, etc. The fact that BioLogos so often seemed to be championing what I deemed logical, historical, theological and philosophical errors made me mistrust BioLogos overall, even though I agreed with some of what it had to say.
The answer, I think, is for people to speak for themselves, and not through a corporate mask. That is the traditional academic way: scholars and scientists speak for themselves (not for their university, or for “science”, but for themselves), and defend their claims.
However, the world being the way it is, there are advocacy groups, and as long as advocacy groups for one side exist, and are allowed legally to promote their positions, it’s only fair that advocacy groups for other sides should be allowed to exist, too. So if we have to put up with the theoretical murkiness of BioLogos columns, we have to put up with the theoretical murkiness of Evolution News and Views columns.
I prefer discussing theoretical notions put forward by various ID leaders, to discussing the social or cultural behavior of the DI. Similarly, I would rather discuss the particular positions of Francis Collins, or Denis Lamoureux, etc. than talk about the behavior of BioLogos in general, or “theistic evolutionists” in general.
I think that Peaceful Science will serve the public best if there is no “Peaceful Science” corporate doctrine, but if the place remains a forum for dialogue between people from different camps, where no camp is treated as sacrosanct and beyond criticism, and ideas are weighed on their merits, not on whether they come from Discovery or BioLogos or somewhere else.