Fandom

CriaWiki

Ensine a Controvérsia

96 páginas
nesta wiki
Adicione uma página
Falar0 Compartilhar
Este artigo ou secção possui passagens que foram importadas da Wikipédia. Ainda é necessário adaptá-lo às necessidades da CriaWiki.
Esta página está sendo traduzida!

Ensine a Controvérsia é uma o nome de uma campanha iniciada nos Estados Unidos pelo Discovery Institute para promover a aceitação do [[Design Inteligente — uma variação do Criacionismo — e desacreditar a Teoria da Evolução por seleção natural. A campanha é endereçada aos professores de ciências de escolas secundárias.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

A maioria das organizações científicas americanas, inclusive a Associação Americana para o Progresso da Ciência, concorda que o Instituto inventou a controvérsia que deseja ensina através da insistência junto ao público de que a Teoria da Evolução é uma “teoria em crise” por estar supostamente sofrendo ampla revisão dentro da comunidade acadêmica. Em mais de uma oportunidade, tribunais judiciais americanos se solidarizaram com a posição da AAAS e declararam que o ensino da controvérsia é uma forma de ensinar criacionismo — o que, por sua vez, equivale a ensinar a teologia de um grupo cristão em particular e, portanto, viola o direito à liberdade de culto.[7][8][9][10] McGill University Professor Brian Alters, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution"[11] whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.[12][13]

A alegação principal feita pelo Discovery Institute é a de que em nome da justiça e da igualdade é necessário educar os alunos com uma “visão crítica da Teoria da Evolução”,[14] abrangendo “toda a gama de opiniões científicas”,[15] os “problemas não resolvidos” da Teoria da Evolução e sua “fragilidade metodológica”.[16] Desta forma, além dos mecanismos evolutivos, deveriam ser ensinados conceitos como o Design Inteligente e a Complexidade Irredutível[17] — apresentados como argumentos científicos contrários a Teoria da Evolução através de referências oblíquas a livros escritos por proponentes de tais teorias, listados na bibliografia dos planos de curso propostos pelo Instituto.[18]

A comunidade científica e as entidades de educação científica têm respondido que não há de fato nenhuma controvérsia científica sobre a validade da Teoria da Evolução e que a referida controvérsia se restringe aos campos da religião e da política.[19][9][8]

O movimento do Design Inteligente e a campanha “Ensine a Controvérsia” são dirigidos e apoiados principalmente pelo Discovery Institute, uma entidade ligada à direita conservadora e cristã[20][21] e sediada em Seattle, Washington, Estados Unidos. O auto-proclamado objetivo do movimento é “derrotar a visão de mundo materialista representada pela Teoria da Evolução e substituí-la por uma ciência em harmonia que a crença partilhada pelos associados do Instituto.[22]

Com a decisão de Dezembro de 2005 do caso Kitzmiller versus Escola Distrital de Dover — no qual o Juiz John E. Jones III concluiu que o design inteligente não é ciência e “não pode ser dissociado de seus antecedentes criacionistas, e portanto religiosos” — [23] os proponentes do design inteligente ficaram restritos à estratégia do “Ensine a Controvérsia” como único método eficaz de ação na linha de objetivos traçada pelo documento da cunha. Desta forma, ela passou a concentrar os esforços do Discovery Institute na promoção de suas metas. Uma vez que o design inteligente é um cavalo de batalha na campanha contra o que seus proponentes chamam de fundações materialistas da ciência que excluem Deus, a estratégia “Ensine a Controvérsia” é parte de um complô religioso.[24]

Origem da expressão Editar

A expressão “Ensine a Controvérsia” surgiu com Gerald Graff, um professor de inglês e didática na Universidade de Illinois, em Chicago[25] como um alerta para ensinar que o conhecimento estabelecido não foi obtido de forma acabada, mas desenvolvido em um cadinho de debates e controvérsias. Para o desgosto de Graff, que se descreve como um secularista liberalismo,[26] a idéia foi posteriormente apropriada por Phillip E. Johnson, consultor de programas do Discovery Institute e pai do movimento do design inteligente. Falando sobre a controvérsia de 1999-2000 no Kansas, Johnson escreveu que “o que os educadores no Kansas e em outros lugares deveriam estar fazendo é ensinar a controvérsia”. Em seu livro, Johnson entende que confrontar pontos de vista e estratégias diferentes é uma controvérsia acadêmica. Esta definição difere bastante do conceito original de Graff. Enquanto Graff defendia a necessidade de um conhecimento mais aprofundado do que é considerado “conhecimento estabelecido” ser acompanhado do ensino dos debates e conflitos através dos quais eles foram obtidos, Johnson se assenhorou da expressão para pôr em dúvida o próprio conceito de conhecimento estabelecido.[27]

A expressão foi usada por outros filiados do Discovery Institute — Stephen C. Meyer, David K. DeWolf, and Mark E. DeForrest — em seu artigo de 1999, Ensinando a controvérsia: Darwinismo, Desígnio e o currículo de ciências das escolas públicas [28] publicado pela Fundação pelo Pensamento e a Ética. Esta também publicou o controverso livro didático de biologia pró-design Sobre Pandas e Pessoas, sugerido como uma alternativa para os livros-texto de biologia a ciência pelo Discovery Institute.

Tufts University Professor of Philosophy Daniel C. Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, describes how they generate a sense of controversy: "The proponents of intelligent design use an ingenious ploy that works something like this: First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a 'controversy' to teach."[29] Such a controversy is then self-fulfilling and self-sustaining, though completely without any legitimate basis in the academic world.

Critics of the Teach the Controversy movement and strategy can also be found outside of the scientific community. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, described the approach of the movement's proponents as "a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry." "The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Lynn. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."[30] Bill Maher said of Teach the Controversy "You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap."[31]

The Discovery Institute Editar

According to critics of the Discovery Institute's efforts through the Teach the Controversy campaign and the intelligent design movement, the Wedge strategy betrays the Institute's political rather than scientific and educational purpose. The Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture (CSC) has an overarching conservative Christian social and political agenda that seeks to redefine both law and science and how they are conducted, with the stated goal of a religious "renewal" of American culture.

Critics also allege that the Discovery Institute has a long-standing record of misrepresenting research, law and its own policy and agenda and that of others:

  • In announcing the Teach the Controversy strategy in 2002, the Discovery Institute’s Stephen C. Meyer[32] presented an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution."[33] In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organization that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools,[34] contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered his or her research to provide evidence against evolution.[35]
  • The Discovery Institute, following the policies outlined by Phillip E. Johnson, obfuscates its agenda. Opposed to the public statements to the contrary made by the Discovery Institute, Johnson has admitted that the goal of intelligent design movement is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

  • Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.[36]
  • This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.[37]
  • If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the 'wedge.'[38]
  • So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.[39]

Phillip E. Johnson

  • Rob Boston summarised Johnson's vision of the Wedge as: "The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"[40]
  • Instead of producing original scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers through its Teach the Controversy campaign.

Johnson's statements validate the criticisms leveled by those who allege that the Discovery Institute and its allied organizations are merely stripping the obvious religious content from their anti-evolution assertions as a means of avoiding the legal restriction on establishment. They argue that ID is simply an attempt to put a patina of secularity on top of what is a fundamentally religious belief and agenda.

Given the history of the Discovery Institute as an organization committed to opposing any scientific theory inconsistent with "the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God",[41] many scientists regard the movement purely as a ploy to insert creationism into the science curriculum rather than as a serious attempt to discuss scientific evidence. In the words of Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Education:

Teach the controversy' is a deliberately ambiguous phrase. It means 'pretend to students that scientists are arguing over whether evolution took place.' This is not happening. I mean you go to the scientific journals, you go to universities... and you ask the professors, is there an argument going on about whether living things had common ancestors? They'll look at you blankly. This is not a controversy.[42]

Though Teach the Controversy proponents cite the current public policy statements of the Discovery Institute as belying the criticisms that their strategy is a creationist ploy and decry critics as biased in failing to recognize that the intelligent design movement's Teach the Controversy strategy as really just a question of science with no religion involved, is itself belied by Discovery Institute's former published policy statements,[43] its "Wedge Document", and statements made to its constituency by its leadership, and in particular Phillip E. Johnson.

Writes Johnson in the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000):

The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message. ... The first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact.[44]

Johnson's words bolster the claims of those critics who cite Johnson's admission that the ultimate goal of the campaign is getting "the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[36]

Amid this political and religious controversy the clear, categorical and oft-repeated view of established national and international scientific organizations remains that there is no scientific controversy over teaching evolution in public schools.

University courseEditar

George Mason University Biology Department introduced a 1-credit course on the creation/evolution controversy, and a philosophy professor from the university found that as students learn more about biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing. He concluded that "teaching the controversy" would undermine creationists’ criticisms, and that the scientific community’s resistance to this approach was bad public relations. Rather than being taught in a mainstream science course, it would be a separate elective course, probably taught by a scientist but called a course on "philosophy of science", "history of science", or "politics of science and religion".[45]

Biologist Tom A. Langen argues in a journal letter entitled "What is right with ‘teaching the controversy’?" that teaching students about this controversy will help them understand the demarcation between science and other ways of obtaining knowledge about nature.[46] Similar positions have been expressed by atheists Julian Baggini[47] and Aaron Sloman.[48] -->

Outros artigos a consultarEditar

Links externosEditar

Áudio e vídeoEditar

ReferênciasEditar

  1. Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), [Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy {{{3}}}], Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., <http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf>. Retrieved on 6 Agosto 2007 .
  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
  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... Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006
  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
  8. 8,0 8,1 "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
  9. 9,0 9,1 "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 Barbara Forrest. May, 2007.
  11. Finding the Evolution in Medicine 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.
  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]
  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
  25. "To Debate or Not to Debate Intelligent Design?" by Gerald Graff, Inside Higher Ed, September 28, 2005.
  26. To Debate or Not to Debate Intelligent Design? By Gerald Graff, Inside Higher Ed, September 28, 2005.
  27. The Crusade Against Evolution, Evan Ratliff, October 2004, Wired magazine
  28. Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Curriculum David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer, Mark E. DeForrest. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, October 1, 1999
  29. Erro de citação Tag <ref> inválida; não foi fornecido texto para as refs chamadas show_me
  30. Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens Peter Slevin. Washington Post, March 14 2005.
  31. New Rules Bill Maher. Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, August 19, 2005.
  32. Meyer's Hopeless Monster Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry. TalkReason.org, 2005.
  33. Teach the Controversy Stephen C. Meyer. Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30 2002.
  34. About the NCSE National Science Teachers Association
  35. Analysis of the Discovery Institute's "Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction" National Center for Science Education (PDF file)
  36. 36,0 36,1 Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin Elizabeth Nickson. Christianity.ca, February, 2004.
  37. Witness For The Prosecution, Darwin on Trial author brings together anti-Darwin coalition to bring down evolution Joel Belz. World Magazine, Volume 11, Number 28, p. 18. November 30 1996.
  38. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Phillip E. Johnson. 1997. pp. 91-92
  39. Berkeley’s Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson Touchstone Magazine interview, June 2002.
  40. Missionary Man, Rob Boston, Church & State, April 1999
  41. The "Wedge Document": So What? Discovery Institute.
  42. "Creation Conflict in Schools" National Center for Science Education.
  43. What is The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture All About?
    The Mission of The Center for Renewal of Science & Culture
  44. The Wedge Breaking the Modernist Monopoly on Science Phillip E. Johnson. ARN.org.
  45. AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion, 20 April 2006, Emmett Holman, Associate Professor of Philosophy from George Mason University, retrieved 2007-04-29
  46. Langen, Tom A. (2004). "What is right with ‘teaching the controversy’?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19 (3): 114-115. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.005. 
  47. Baggini, Julian (2007-06-15). "Why we should learn Intelligent Design", Times Educational Supplement, TSL Education Ltd. Retrieved on 2008-06-27. 
  48. Sloman, Aaron. "Why scientists and philosophers of science should teach intelligent design (ID) alongside the theory of evolution". Retrieved on 2008-06-27.

Interferência de bloqueador de anúncios detectada!


A Wikia é um site grátis que ganha dinheiro com publicidade. Nós temos uma experiência modificada para leitores usando bloqueadores de anúncios

A Wikia não é acessível se você fez outras modificações. Remova o bloqueador de anúncios personalizado para que a página carregue como esperado.

Também no Fandom

Wiki aleatória