My response

Following up on Drew's post, here is my response to comment number one. Stuff in quotation marks comes from the other guy's post.

"A lot of people go into academic life because they like the job security."
Excuse me, but what planet do you live on? There is no real security in an academic job. You might have some security after you get tenure, but you don't get tenure until you've been somewhere for a few years and work your a** off teaching, doing research, advising, publishing... How about the salaries? Maybe if you become a superstar best-selling author you can make some money from a publisher house, but 99% of the time this is not the case. Some academics that have slightly higher salaries are the ones in business, maybe engineering, but definitely not the ones in pure research, like biology. Take a look at the salary of an entry-level professor. It is irrisory! Now compare the ridiculously low salary to how much time, effort, and money the person has put into at least 10 years of higher education. No one gets an academic job for the money or easy work. It just doesn't make sense. Honestly, I see no "ulterior" greedy motive for anyone to be in an academic job, other than the love of the field and the will to help improve the world.

"They will never admit they are wrong or even consider alternate theories."
I see you are really not an academic, because this is what the whole field is all about. "Publish or perish" means that the people who are reviewing your work have it in their best interest to find all your flaws so that they can publish more than you. So anything that gets published in serious peer-reviewed journal has gone through the hands of people eager to criticize your work. If it is then finally approved, it is because it deserved it.
As for alternate theories, they are all considered as long as they are a real theory. When are the IDers going to understand that ID is NOT a theory?

"Darwinism is the death blow to open inquiry"
What?? Do you know how much inquiry Darwinism has generated? Do you know how many serious attempts have been made to debunk it? By serious I mean real scientific work and not "God-did-it" approaches. And in trying to falsify it, they have just shown how strong it is. Saying something is "irreducibly complex" is what really kills inquiry, because then you conclude that there is nothing else to be studied. What if people in the past had thought that germs were irreducible complex? Do you think it would have been better to just accept it and never work on vaccines or curing diseases? What is really stopping inquiry, understanding the process that led to the development of a complex being or to just say that someone designed it and leave it at that?