Discovery Institute: diferenças entre revisões
Conteúdo apagado Conteúdo adicionado
Resgatando 1 fontes e marcando 0 como inativas. #IABot (v2.0beta14) |
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/ |
||
| Linha 1: | Linha 1: | ||
{{Idioma estrangeiro}} |
{{Idioma estrangeiro}} |
||
{{design inteligente}} |
{{design inteligente}} |
||
O '''Discovery Institute''' (Instituto Discovery) é um [[think tank]] [[conservador]] [[Estados Unidos|norte-americano]] baseado em [[Seattle]], [[Washington]], mais conhecido pela sua defesa do [[design inteligente]] e de sua campanha [[Ensine a controvérsia]] que propõe a discussão daquilo que entende ser as deficiências da Teoria da Evolução nas aulas de ciências do [[Ensino público|sistema público de ensino]] dos [[Estados Unidos da América]].<ref name=ForrestMayPaper>Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF), [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals]. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., Acessado em 6 de agosto de 2007.</ref><ref name="abc">[http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate] ABC News, November 9 2005</ref><ref>"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 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm 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."</ref><ref>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.[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists...] {{Wayback|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |date=20150906051325 }} Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref> Uma corte federal, junto da maioria das organizações científicas, incluindo a [[Associação Americana para o Avanço da Ciência]], afirma que o Instituto fabricou a controvérsia que ensina ao promover uma falsa noção de que a evolução é uma "teoria em crise", incorretamente alegando que a mesma seria o foco de um amplo debate dentro da comunidade científica.<ref name="kitzmiller_pg89">"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." [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.|Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]</ref><ref name="nejm">"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." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006</ref><ref name=AAAS>"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." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006</ref> Em 2005, a mesma corte federal decretou que o Discovery Institute busca "missões demonstravelmente religiosas, culturais e legais",<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum,_Conclusion#Page_131_of_139 Julgamento, página 131 de 139] Kitzmiller v. Dover.</ref> e que o manifesto do Instituto, a [[Estratégia da cunha]], descreve um objetivo religioso: de "reverter a dominância sufocante da visão de mundo materialista, e a substituí-la com uma ciência mais consoante com convicções cristãs e teístas”.<ref name="wedge_and_response">"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ... "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."[http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Strategy] Discovery Institute, 1999. The institute's response to the leaking of the Wedge strategy, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101 The "Wedge Document": So What?] raises the same objection to the materialistic worldview: "We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture".</ref><ref>{{citar jornal|primeiro = Tapper |último = Jake |título= McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire | url = http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2897153&page=1 |formato= |obra= |publicado= ABC News |data= 2007-02-22 |acessodata= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> |
O '''Discovery Institute''' (Instituto Discovery) é um [[think tank]] [[conservador]] [[Estados Unidos|norte-americano]] baseado em [[Seattle]], [[Washington]], mais conhecido pela sua defesa do [[design inteligente]] e de sua campanha [[Ensine a controvérsia]] que propõe a discussão daquilo que entende ser as deficiências da Teoria da Evolução nas aulas de ciências do [[Ensino público|sistema público de ensino]] dos [[Estados Unidos da América]].<ref name=ForrestMayPaper>Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF), [http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals]. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., Acessado em 6 de agosto de 2007.</ref><ref name="abc">[http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1297170&WNT=true Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate] ABC News, November 9 2005</ref><ref>"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 [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=survival_of_the_slickest Survival of the Slickest: How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23</ref><ref>[http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_teachingid0201.htm 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."</ref><ref>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.[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists...] {{Wayback|url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/no_one_here_but.html |date=20150906051325 }} Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11 2006</ref> Uma corte federal, junto da maioria das organizações científicas, incluindo a [[Associação Americana para o Avanço da Ciência]], afirma que o Instituto fabricou a controvérsia que ensina ao promover uma falsa noção de que a evolução é uma "teoria em crise"<ref>{{Citar web|titulo=Evolution: a theory in crisis (Michael Denton).|url=http://www.wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho18.htm|obra=www.wasdarwinwrong.com|acessodata=2019-12-19}}</ref><ref>{{Citar periódico|ultimo=Kuhn|primeiro=Joseph A.|data=2012-1-1|titulo=Dissecting Darwinism|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/|jornal=Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)|volume=25|numero=1|paginas=41–47|issn=0899-8280|pmc=3246854|pmid=22275784|acessodata=}}</ref><ref>{{Citar periódico|ultimo=Sheldon|primeiro=Myrna Perez|data=2014-03-01|titulo=Claiming Darwin: Stephen Jay Gould in contests over evolutionary orthodoxy and public perception, 1977–2002|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613001271|jornal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences|volume=45|paginas=139–147|doi=10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.10.002|issn=1369-8486}}</ref><ref>{{Citar livro|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=pt-BR&lr=&id=BSKDAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=dissent+of+darwinism&ots=nDGhOWfHMA&sig=HANWZuSavzQrEw7vGTu66BfG9-g|título=Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing|ultimo=Dembski|primeiro=William|data=2014-05-13|editora=Open Road Media|lingua=en|isbn=978-1-4976-4895-1}}</ref><ref>{{Citar web|titulo=Intelligent Design Theory – An Overview|url=http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_idtheoryoverview.htm|obra=www.arn.org|acessodata=2019-12-19|data=2000|publicado=|ultimo=|primeiro=}}</ref>, incorretamente alegando que a mesma seria o foco de um amplo debate dentro da comunidade científica.<ref>{{Citar periódico|ultimo=Axe|primeiro=Douglas D.|ultimo2=Dixon|primeiro2=Brendan W.|ultimo3=Lu|primeiro3=Philip|data=2008-06-04|titulo=Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints|url=https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002246|jornal=PLOS ONE|lingua=en|volume=3|numero=6|paginas=e2246|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0002246|issn=1932-6203|pmc=2405935|pmid=18523658|acessodata=}}</ref><ref name="kitzmiller_pg89">"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." [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.|Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]]</ref><ref name="nejm">"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." [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/21/2277 Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom] George J. Annas, [[New England Journal of Medicine]], Volume 354:2277-2281 May 25, 2006</ref><ref name=AAAS>"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." [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf AAAS Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]]. February 16, 2006</ref> Em 2005, a mesma corte federal decretou que o Discovery Institute busca "missões demonstravelmente religiosas, culturais e legais",<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/6:Curriculum,_Conclusion#Page_131_of_139 Julgamento, página 131 de 139] Kitzmiller v. Dover.</ref> e que o manifesto do Instituto, a [[Estratégia da cunha]], descreve um objetivo religioso: de "reverter a dominância sufocante da visão de mundo materialista, e a substituí-la com uma ciência mais consoante com convicções cristãs e teístas”.<ref name="wedge_and_response">"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ... "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."[http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf Wedge Strategy] Discovery Institute, 1999. The institute's response to the leaking of the Wedge strategy, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101 The "Wedge Document": So What?] raises the same objection to the materialistic worldview: "We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture".</ref><ref>{{citar jornal|primeiro = Tapper |último = Jake |título= McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire | url = http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2897153&page=1 |formato= |obra= |publicado= ABC News |data= 2007-02-22 |acessodata= 2007-12-05 }}</ref> |
||
{{referências}} |
{{referências}} |
||
Revisão das 14h33min de 19 de dezembro de 2019
Predefinição:Idioma estrangeiro
O Discovery Institute (Instituto Discovery) é um think tank conservador norte-americano baseado em Seattle, Washington, mais conhecido pela sua defesa do design inteligente e de sua campanha Ensine a controvérsia que propõe a discussão daquilo que entende ser as deficiências da Teoria da Evolução nas aulas de ciências do sistema público de ensino dos Estados Unidos da América.[1][2][3][4][5] Uma corte federal, junto da maioria das organizações científicas, incluindo a Associação Americana para o Avanço da Ciência, afirma que o Instituto fabricou a controvérsia que ensina ao promover uma falsa noção de que a evolução é uma "teoria em crise"[6][7][8][9][10], incorretamente alegando que a mesma seria o foco de um amplo debate dentro da comunidade científica.[11][12][13][14] Em 2005, a mesma corte federal decretou que o Discovery Institute busca "missões demonstravelmente religiosas, culturais e legais",[15] e que o manifesto do Instituto, a Estratégia da cunha, descreve um objetivo religioso: de "reverter a dominância sufocante da visão de mundo materialista, e a substituí-la com uma ciência mais consoante com convicções cristãs e teístas”.[16][17]
Referências
- ↑ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007) (PDF), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., Acessado em 6 de agosto de 2007.
- ↑ 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. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
- ↑ 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
- ↑ «Evolution: a theory in crisis (Michael Denton).». www.wasdarwinwrong.com. Consultado em 19 de dezembro de 2019
- ↑ Kuhn, Joseph A. (1 de janeiro de 2012). «Dissecting Darwinism». Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). 25 (1): 41–47. ISSN 0899-8280. PMC 3246854
. PMID 22275784
- ↑ Sheldon, Myrna Perez (1 de março de 2014). «Claiming Darwin: Stephen Jay Gould in contests over evolutionary orthodoxy and public perception, 1977–2002». Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 45: 139–147. ISSN 1369-8486. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.10.002
- ↑ Dembski, William (13 de maio de 2014). Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (em inglês). [S.l.]: Open Road Media. ISBN 978-1-4976-4895-1
- ↑ «Intelligent Design Theory – An Overview». www.arn.org. 2000. Consultado em 19 de dezembro de 2019
- ↑ Axe, Douglas D.; Dixon, Brendan W.; Lu, Philip (4 de junho de 2008). «Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints». PLOS ONE (em inglês). 3 (6): e2246. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 2405935. PMID 18523658. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002246
- ↑ "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." v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 89 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 89]
- ↑ "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
- ↑ "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
- ↑ Julgamento, página 131 de 139 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
- ↑ "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." ... "If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, 1999. The institute's response to the leaking of the Wedge strategy, The "Wedge Document": So What? raises the same objection to the materialistic worldview: "We think the materialist world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the 19th century is false and we want to refute it. We further want to reverse the influence of such materialistic thinking on our culture".
- ↑ Jake, Tapper (22 de fevereiro de 2007). «McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire». ABC News. Consultado em 5 de dezembro de 2007
