PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Design inteligente
Parte de uma série de artigos sobre
Um relógio de bolso do tipo savonette
Conceitos
Complexidade Irredutível Complexidade especificada Universo bem afinado Designer inteligente Realismo teísta Criacionismo Tedeísmo
Movimento do design inteligente
Cronologia Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture Estratégia da cunha Análise Crítica da Evolução Ensine a Controvérsia Design inteligente na política Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Reações
Judaísmo · Católica Romana Organizações científicas

Portal do Criacionismo
v d e

Ensine a Controvérsia é uma campanha criada pelo Discovery Institute que possui dois objetivos principais: promover o design inteligente, que defende que algumas características da natureza são mais bem explicadas por uma causa inteligente e apontar as deficiências da teoria da evolução nas aulas de ciências das escolas públicas do ensino médio americano.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Uma corte federal americana, em conjunto com a maioria das organizações científicas, incluindo a Associação Americana para o Avanço da Ciência, declarou que o Instituto tem fabricado a controvérsia que querem ensinar, promovendo uma percepção errada de que a evolução é "uma teoria em crise" devido a ser supostamente objeto de grande controvérsia e debate no seio da comunidade científica.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] O professor da Universidade McGill Brian Alters, um especialista na controvérsia da criação vs. evolução, é citado em um artigo publicado pela NIH afirmando que "99,9 por cento dos cientistas aceitam a evolução"^[11] enquanto o design inteligente foi e é rejeitado pela maioria esmagadora da comunidade científica.^[12]^[13]

A alegação central que o Discovery Institute faz com o Ensine a Controvérsia é que a imparcialidade e igualdade de tempo requerem que os alunos sejam ensinados uma "Análise crítica da evolução"^[14] onde "um amplo escopo de visões científicas",^[15] "questões não resolvidas" da evolução, e as "fraquezas científicas da teoria evolucionária"^[16] são apresentadas e avaliadas ao lado de conceitos do design inteligente como a complexidade irredutível,^[17] e oferecidas como argumentos contra a evolução através de referências oblíquas a livros de autores defensores do design inteligente, listados na bibliografia do plano de lição "Análise Crítica da Evolução" proposto pelo Instituto.^[18] A comunidade científica e organizações de educação científica já responderam que na verdade não existe nenhuma controvérsia em relação a validade da evolução e que a polêmica existe unicamente em termos religiosos e políticos.^[8]^[9]^[19]

A campanha Ensine a Controvérsia do movimento do design inteligente é ditada a apoiada majoritariamente pelo Discovery Institute, um think tank cristão conservador ^[20]^[21] baseado em Seattle, Washington, EUA. O objetivo principal do movimento é "derrotar [a] visão de mundo materialista" representada pela teoria da evolução e a substituí-la como uma "ciência consoante com convicções cristãs e teístas".^[22]

Com a decisão judicial de dezembro de 2005 no caso Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, onde o Juiz John E. Jones III concluiu que o design inteligente não é ciência e "não pode se desacoplar de seus antecedentes criacionistas, e consequentemente religiosos",^[23] defensores do design inteligente foram deixado com a estratégia Ensine a Controvérsia como o método mais provável que restou para realizar os objetivos enunciados no documento da cunha. Portanto, a estratégia Ensine a Controvérsia tornou-se o principal impulso do Discovery Institute para promover seus objetivos. Assim como o design inteligente é uma fachada para a campanha contra o que seus defensores alegam ser a fundação materialista na ciência que se opõe a Deus, Ensine a Controvérsia tornou-se a fachada para o design inteligente. Entretanto a decisão em Dover também caracterizou "ensinar a controvérsia" como parte de uma trama religiosa. ^[24]

Ver também

Referências

↑ «Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy» (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc. Consultado em 15 de fevereiro de 2009
↑ Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? Linda Shaw. The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005.
↑ Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate ABC News, November 9 2005
↑ "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message Arquivado em 5 de abril de 2005, no Wayback Machine.
↑ Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."
↑ Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Arquivado em 6 de setembro de 2015, no Wayback Machine. Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006
↑ "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89
↑ ^a ^b "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006
↑ ^a ^b "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006
↑ Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Arquivado em 30 de junho de 2007, no Wayback Machine. Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
↑ Finding the Evolution in Medicine Arquivado em 18 de julho de 2011, no Wayback Machine. National Institutes of Health
↑ "ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community" Ruling, page 64 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
↑ "Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science." Ruling, page 70 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
↑ Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools by Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006. Page 30.
↑ Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute staff. August 21, 2007.
↑ CSC Questions about Science Education Policy Discovery Institute staff.
↑ Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools by Eugenie Carol Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006.Page 35.
↑ Teaching the Origins Controversy: A Guide for the Perplexed. Special Discovery Institute Report David K. DeWolf. Discovery Institute, August 20, 1999.
↑ "Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition United States National Academy of Sciences
↑ "The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC." Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
↑ Patricia O’Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area. [1]
↑ Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.
↑ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion (pages 136-138)
↑ "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Conclusion, Page 134 of 139

Ligações externas

«Center for Science and Culture» (em inglês) Teach The Controversy

Este artigo é um esboço. Você pode ajudar a Wikipédia expandindo-o.

Editor: considere marcar com um esboço mais específico.

[ForrestMayPaper-1] «Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy» (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc. Consultado em 15 de fevereiro de 2009

[meyer_seattle_times-2] Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? Linda Shaw. The Seattle Times, March 31, 2005.

[3] Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate ABC News, November 9 2005

[4] "ID's home base is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution that closely inﬂuenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory." Chris Mooney. The American Prospect. December 2, 2002 Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message Arquivado em 5 de abril de 2005, no Wayback Machine.

[5] Teaching Intelligent Design: What Happened When? by William A. Dembski"The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to "teach the controversy." There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity (cf. the ongoing events in Kansas), and it is a scientific controversy."

[6] Nick Matzke's analysis shows how teaching the controversy using the Critical Analysis of Evolution model lesson plan is a means of teaching all the intelligent design arguments without using the intelligent design label.No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists... Arquivado em 6 de setembro de 2015, no Wayback Machine. Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006

[kitzmiller_pg89-7] "ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89

[nejm-8] "That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned." Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom George J. Annas, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006

[AAAS-9] "Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one." AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution American Association for the Advancement of Science. February 16, 2006

[10] Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy Arquivado em 30 de junho de 2007, no Wayback Machine. Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.

[11] Finding the Evolution in Medicine Arquivado em 18 de julho de 2011, no Wayback Machine. National Institutes of Health

[12] "ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community" Ruling, page 64 Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[13] "Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science." Ruling, page 70 Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[14] Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools by Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006. Page 30.

[15] Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members Discovery Institute staff. August 21, 2007.

[16] CSC Questions about Science Education Policy Discovery Institute staff.

[17] Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools by Eugenie Carol Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006.Page 35.

[18] Teaching the Origins Controversy: A Guide for the Perplexed. Special Discovery Institute Report David K. DeWolf. Discovery Institute, August 20, 1999.

[nap-19] "Such controversies as do exist concern the details of the mechanisms of evolution, not the validity of the over-arching theory of evolution, which is one of the best supported theories in all of science." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition United States National Academy of Sciences

[20] "The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC." Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[21] Patricia O’Connell Killen, a religion professor at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma whose work centers around the regional religious identity of the Pacific Northwest, recently wrote that "religiously inspired think tanks such as the conservative evangelical Discovery Institute" are part of the "religious landscape" of that area. [1]

[wedge_doc-22] Wedge Document Discovery Institute, 1999.

[23] Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Conclusion (pages 136-138)

[24] "has the effect of implicitly bolstering alternative religious theories of origin by suggesting that evolution is a problematic theory even in the field of science." . . . The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Conclusion, Page 134 of 139

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Ensine a Controvérsia

Ver também

Referências

Ligações externas

Read other articles:

Penghargaan AMI untuk Pendatang Baru Terbaik-Terbaik

Dysautonomia

531

Basilika Peziarahan Maria Luggau, Lesachtal

Kanawha River

XII Bomber Command

大字 (数字)

Charles Péguy

1928 in baseball

Ambika Soni

Club Comunicaciones

Eastern kingbird

Carioca Arena 3

Cairnryan

العلاقات السعودية الليبية

Sleep medicine

Viktor Dohadailo

Tujia people

South Seas Mandate

ナイター