| Revision as of 18:49, 31 July 2006 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits + cat← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:34, 10 August 2006 edit undoTim Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,323 edits fixed typos, added more fellows and chat guests, moved criticism of PCID to controversy section, reworded criticism per cited sources, requested citations, added Dembski's justificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| The '''International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design''' (ISCID) is a |
The '''International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design''' (ISCID) is a non-profit ] that investigates ]s and promotes ], the controversial idea that there is scientific evidence for design in life. | ||
| == Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| The Society was |
The Society was launched on ] ]. It was co-founded by ], Micah Sparacio and John Bracht. Dembski—mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and intelligent-design advocate—is its Executive Director. Its fellows include leaders of the ID movement, including ] and ], and other notable figures including ], ], ], and ]. | ||
| ISCID says that it is "a cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like ], ], or ]. The society provides a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating ] on ]s through critique, ], and publication. Its aim is to pursue the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems." Its tagline is "retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature". | |||
| ISCID maintains an online ] titled ''Progress in Complexity, Information and Design'' and hosts an online forum called Brainstorms for discussion of novel ideas and work in progress related to complex systems. It also maintains a copyrighted online user-written ] ] called the ''ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy''. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | The society features online chats with intelligent design proponents and others sympathetic to the movement or interested in aspects of complex systems. Past chats have included people such as ], ], ] and ]. | ||
| ISCID maintains a copyrighted online user-written ] ] called the ''ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy''. | |||
| ⚫ | The society features online chats |
||
| == PCID peer review controversy == | == PCID peer review controversy == | ||
| ⚫ | One of the primary criticisms of the ] and hindrances to intelligent-design claims being considered legitimate science is that intelligent-design proponents have failed to produce research papers that appear in peer-reviewed ] that support their position.<ref name=kitzruling_pg87>John E. Jones III. ]</ref> | ||
| Critics say that intelligent-design proponents have set up their own journals with a weak standard of "peer review", and point to ISCID's journal ''Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'' as an example.<ref>Matthew J. Brauer, ], Steven G. Gey. , p. 95. (PDF file)</ref> Articles are submitted to ''PCID'' through the ISCID website and may appear in the journal if they have been approved by one of the fellows. Critics note that the fellows consist almost exclusively of intelligent-design supporters and that the purpose of peer review is not served if reviewers are uncritical.<ref>Mark Isaak. , Response 2c.</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | Critics further argue that ''PCID'' articles could not pass critical peer review in the rest of the scientific literature,{{fact}} that the journal by excluding the preponderance of mainstream research being conducted that contradicts intelligent design is displaying an ] and lacks scholarly ],{{fact}} and that the journal has failed to appear several times, showing a lack of ideas and research for the intelligent design concept.{{fact}} | ||
| ⚫ | One of the primary criticisms of the |
||
| Dembski holds that peer review as typically practiced by journals "too often degenerates into a vehicle for censoring novel ideas that break with existing frameworks",<ref>William Dembski. </ref> citing as justification for ''PCID''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s policy Frank Tipler's paper "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?"<ref>Frank Tipler. </ref> Tipler argues that journalistic peer review did not become a widespread requirement for scientific respectability until after World War II, that many great ideas did not appear first in peer-reviewed journals, that outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas were rejected by such journals, and that the refereeing process now works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. | |||
| Critics in the scientific community say that intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack ] and ], and point to ISCID's journal ''Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'' as such an example,<ref>"With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical." Mark Isaak, TalkOrigins archive 2006 </ref> since reviewers in the PCID journal consist entirely of intelligent design supporters.<ref>"ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows. Matthew J. Brauer, ], and Steven G. Gey (PDF file)</ref> | |||
| ==Notes and references== | ==Notes and references== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | ** | ||
| ** | ** | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 18:34, 10 August 2006
The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) is a non-profit professional society that investigates complex systems and promotes intelligent design, the controversial idea that there is scientific evidence for design in life.
Overview
The Society was launched on 6 December 2001. It was co-founded by William Dembski, Micah Sparacio and John Bracht. Dembski—mathematician, philosopher, theologian, and intelligent-design advocate—is its Executive Director. Its fellows include leaders of the ID movement, including Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, and other notable figures including William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, Henry F. Schaefer, and Frank Tipler.
ISCID says that it is "a cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. The society provides a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating research on complex systems through critique, peer review, and publication. Its aim is to pursue the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems." Its tagline is "retraining the scientific imagination to see purpose in nature".
ISCID maintains an online journal titled Progress in Complexity, Information and Design and hosts an online forum called Brainstorms for discussion of novel ideas and work in progress related to complex systems. It also maintains a copyrighted online user-written Internet encyclopedia called the ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy.
The society features online chats with intelligent design proponents and others sympathetic to the movement or interested in aspects of complex systems. Past chats have included people such as Ray Kurzweil, David Chalmers, Stuart Kauffman and Robert Wright.
PCID peer review controversy
One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement and hindrances to intelligent-design claims being considered legitimate science is that intelligent-design proponents have failed to produce research papers that appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals that support their position.
Critics say that intelligent-design proponents have set up their own journals with a weak standard of "peer review", and point to ISCID's journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design as an example. Articles are submitted to PCID through the ISCID website and may appear in the journal if they have been approved by one of the fellows. Critics note that the fellows consist almost exclusively of intelligent-design supporters and that the purpose of peer review is not served if reviewers are uncritical.
Critics further argue that PCID articles could not pass critical peer review in the rest of the scientific literature, that the journal by excluding the preponderance of mainstream research being conducted that contradicts intelligent design is displaying an institutional bias and lacks scholarly rigour, and that the journal has failed to appear several times, showing a lack of ideas and research for the intelligent design concept.
Dembski holds that peer review as typically practiced by journals "too often degenerates into a vehicle for censoring novel ideas that break with existing frameworks", citing as justification for PCID's policy Frank Tipler's paper "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?" Tipler argues that journalistic peer review did not become a widespread requirement for scientific respectability until after World War II, that many great ideas did not appear first in peer-reviewed journals, that outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas were rejected by such journals, and that the refereeing process now works primarily to enforce orthodoxy.
Notes and references
- John E. Jones III. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
- Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, Steven G. Gey. "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution", p. 95. (PDF file)
- Mark Isaak. Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CI001.4, Response 2c.
- William Dembski. "Peer Review or Peer Censorship?"
- Frank Tipler. "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?"