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.
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. 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" whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
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”, abrangendo “toda a gama de opiniões científicas”, os “problemas não resolvidos” da Teoria da Evolução e sua “fragilidade metodológica”. Desta forma, além dos mecanismos evolutivos, deveriam ser ensinados conceitos como o Design Inteligente e a Complexidade Irredutível — 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.
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.
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 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.
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” —  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.
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 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, 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.
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  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." 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." 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."
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 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." 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, 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.
- 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.
- This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.
- 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.'
- 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.
– 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.'"
- 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", 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.
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, 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.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."
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.
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".
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. Similar positions have been expressed by atheists Julian Baggini and Aaron Sloman. -->
Outros artigos a consultarEditar
- Discovery Institute
- Design Inteligente
- Darwin on Trial
- Bruce Chapman
- Estratégia da cunha
- O Monstro Voador de Espaguete
- David Morris, Alternet, 23 May 2005, "Having Fun With Intelligent Design"
- Peter Slevin, Washington Post, March 14, 2005, "Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens"
- Evan Ratliff, Wired, October 2004, "The Crusade Against Evolution"
- Discovery Institute, October 13, 2004, "Wired magazine reporter criticized for agenda driven reporting - critique of Wired article and list of alleged misrepresentations
- Gregg Easterbrook, Wired, December 2002, "The New Convergence"
- Faith and Reason an overview of the Fall 1998 television documentary presented by PBS dealing with religion and science.
- Teach the Controversy Stephen C. Meyer, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 2002
- No Need to Fear Teaching the Controversy, from the Discovery Institute
- Reprint of Washington Post OpEd piece approving of teaching the controversy
- The "Wedge Document": "So What?" (An explanation by the Discovery Institute)
- The "Wedge" Archives at the Access Research Network website.
- Intelligent Design and that Vast Right-wing Conspiracy
- What's wrong with 'teaching the controversy'?
- The Wedge Strategy Three Years Later
- The Discovery Institute
- Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views
- Resolution disparaging ID and ID politics, by the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
- National Center for Science Education resources on ID
- Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences by the Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences, addressing the issue of intelligent design in the guise of creationism.
- The "Intelligent Design" of a Monkey Trial: A Case of Hidden Agendas by Bob Weitzel. At the axisoflogic.com website.
- Should We “Teach the Controversy”? Jason Rosenhouse csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
- State Your Case Chris Mooney. csicop.org (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) 25 October 2004
- Evolution Controversy in Our Schools A letter sent to Academy members by President of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts 4 March 2005.
- The Newest Evolution of Creationism, Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science. Barbara Forrest. Natural History magazine, April, 2002, page 80
- Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Education NCSE staff, National Center for Science Education website
- Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools? (PDF) Robert T. Pennock. March 2002
- Back to School with the Religious Right A report by People For the American Way Foundation
Áudio e vídeoEditar
- How to Teach the Controversy Legally By the Discovery Institute
- The BBC's Robert Pigott: Changes to teaching evolution in Ohio
- "Intelligent Design" Rivals Evolution in Ohio High Schools
- Kansas Schools Struggle with Evolution and Creationism
- Ohio State Board of Education proposed new standards for teaching science
- Textbook Battles
- Why the debate over creationism is dividing the USA