Talk:International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

message: Dembski ground-breaking?  please.  I'll try and sort the POV out.  Dunc|☺ 14:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dembski

message: Can you prove that? If so I don't mind it being in there but without a source it is POVish while the original wording of the sentence was more neutral. Thanks. Falphin 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an easily verified fact, not POV. The best source being their own journal, PCID . That the journal has yet to publish any significant mainstream research that contradicts ID is easily fact-checked by simply reading their volumes. The same holds true of their archives . They state their bias up front: "Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) is a quarterly, cross-disciplinary, online journal that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism". In other words, they implement their own systemic bias while obliquely accusing mainstream science of having it's own. FeloniousMonk 07:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FeloniousMonk - you must show evidence for "excluding the preponderance of mainstream research being conducted that contradicts intelligent design." It is not a stated position of the ISCID journal. WIKI policy is for only verifiable evidence. To demonstrate this, you must show that at least one such article was submitted and that it was rejected. Because no one submitted such an article does not prove "excluding mainstream research." Furthermore, "Mainstream research" begs the question since it presumes methodological naturalism and a priori excludes looking for intelligent design. You cannot find intelligent causation if you a priori exclude it. e.g., forensics experts investigating a fire do not a priori assume no person was involved and only look for natural causes. To investigate for arson, they must assume that intelligent causation may be a possibility and examine evidence for/against it. Intelligent design models and examines empirical evidence for intelligent causation in curret, historical and origins research. I agree with Falphin in quering this phrase. I recommend that it be deleted as POV non-sequetor without verifiable evidence.DLH 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what ID proponents say. But since they are the ones making the assertions the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claims. Preferably by using neutral (non pro-ID), credible sources, which we have yet to see. FeloniousMonk 05:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excluding mainstream research

message: Is a bulletin board posting really an acceptable source?  Guettarda 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Chiu is a design theorist. As a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (see http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php) is a card-carrying member of the ID movement.  Guettarda 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A highly partisan bulletin board at that. Chiu, Dembski and all the other leading ID proponents have been trying to portray themselves as advocating something other than ID ever since the Dover trial ruling found that ID is religious and not valid science; we need to be circumspect about their statements, and any that run counter to the majority viewpoint of what they do or ID is need a caveat and quote from the other side in order to avoid undue weight issues. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletin board? 

message: This 'encyclopedia' appears to be being cited a number of times on wikipedia. Some are ID-specific references, and/or talkpages, etc, but a fair number are serious articles. Not only is it a piece of Creationist trash, but it seems that anybody can become an editor, making it effectively a wiki & thus not a WP:RS for that reason alone. Is there anything we should be doing to alert the unwary on this? HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely outrageous. I think we better look at those references carefully and replace them all if at all possible. There is no way this is a WP:RS--Filll 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed most of them that looked more glaringly bad. I'll try replace them with other refs later today. JoshuaZ 16:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just been doing a bit of scratching around on sources with ties to Creationism and found that WorldNetDaily was cited 681 times. As far as I could tell, most of this was their more general wingnuttery, not Creationism-cruft specifically. But this is still an appalling large number of citations to such a notoriously unreliable source. AiG is also frequently cited -- but many/most of those are for articles related to YEC. HrafnTalkStalk 16:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Their suitable as a primary source only, not as a secondary source. It's actually handy to have it as a source for what they claim (a primary source). Odd nature 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy & [[WP:RS]] 

message: Hrafn pointed out to me [] that ISCID is dead. I'm going to change all the (appropriate) verbs to the past tense. Any objections?
Second, I have separated out the bit about "undermining" the teaching of evolution for two reasons:
#It's not clear what undermining means
#Readers probably want to know whether this is something they have stated explicitly, or a conclusion their opponents have drawn.
I moved the "undermining" bit to the end of the intro - where it can't be missed. I placed a fact tag there, not as as tag bombing but just as a reminder to myself (or others) that we need to provide references for it. (If I thought it was incorrect, I would take it out.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: Did they actually say that science itself had atheistic underpinnings? The intro says so, but there's nothing in the body about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but several prominent pioneers of modern science have had theistic motivations. Galileo and Newton come to mind.
*Put back science's atheistic underpinnings if that is what ISCID actually said. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other changes

message: The Overview section seems to chop and change between the present and past tense - surely it should be in the past, as the organisation no longer exists? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenses 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/about.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/conferences.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/dembski_pcid_policy.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/brainstorms.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/contact.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/essaycontests.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/carlos-puente-chat.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/issues/peerreview.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405165535/http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php to http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607111132/http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/dembski_pcid_policy.php to http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/1-2/dembski_pcid_policy.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iscid.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010171515/http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf to http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ISCID.org doesn't seem to load anymore. Is this organization officially dead? - Scarpy (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct?