O Discovery Institute (Instituto Discovery) é um think tank conservador norte-americano baseado em Seattle, Washington, mais conhecido pela sua defesa da pseudociência 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]
Mais informação Design inteligente, Conceitos ...
Fechar
Uma corte federal, apoiada pela maioria das organizações científicas, incluindo a Associação Americana para o Avanço da Ciência, decidiu 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.[6][7][8] Em 2005, a mesma corte federal decretou que o Discovery Institute busca "missões demonstravelmente religiosas, culturais e legais",[9] 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”.[10][11]
"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[ligação inativa]. Retrieved on 2008-07-23 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 "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 "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?[ligação inativa] 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".
