| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Teach the Controversy ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Teach the Controversy
"Teach the Controversy" is a campaign, conducted by the Discovery Institute, to promote a variant of traditional creationism, intelligent design, while attempting to discredit the teaching of evolution in United States public high school science courses.〔.〕〔(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 )〕〔(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... ) Nick Matzke. The Panda's Thumb, July 11, 2006〕 The campaign claims that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution'〔(Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools ) by Eugenie Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006. Page 30.〕 where "the full range of scientific views",〔(Key Resources for Parents and School Board Members ) Discovery Institute staff. August 21, 2007.〕 evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory"〔(CSC Questions about Science Education Policy ) Discovery Institute staff.〕 will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity〔(Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools ) by Eugenie Carol Scott, Glenn Branch. Beacon Press, 2006.Page 35.〕 presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans.〔(Teaching the Origins Controversy: A Guide for the Perplexed. Special Discovery Institute Report ) David K. DeWolf. Discovery Institute, August 20, 1999.〕 The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian〔"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. ()〕 think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The overall goals of the movement were stated as "to defeat scientific materialism" and "to replace () with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics.〔〔〔"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〕 A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by falsely claiming it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.〔"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〕〔"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〕〔(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.〕 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",〔(Finding the Evolution in Medicine ) National Institutes of Health〕 whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.〔"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."reoRuling, page 70 Kitzmiller v. Dover.〕 In the December 2005 ruling of ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".〔''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'', Conclusion (pages 136-138)〕 The ''Dover'' ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy.〔"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〕
==Origin of phrase==
The term "teach the controversy" originated with Gerald Graff, a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago,〔("To Debate or Not to Debate Intelligent Design?" ) by Gerald Graff, Inside Higher Ed, September 28, 2005.〕 as an admonition to teach that established knowledge is not simply given as a settled matter, but that it is created in a crucible of debate and controversy. To the chagrin of Graff, who describes himself as a liberal secularist,〔 the idea was later appropriated by Phillip E. Johnson, Discovery Institute program advisor and father of the ID movement. Discussing the 1999-2000 Kansas State Board of Education controversy over the teaching of intelligent design in public school classrooms, Johnson wrote "What educators in Kansas and elsewhere should be doing is to 'teach the controversy'." In his book Johnson proposed casting the conflicting points of view and agendas as a scholarly controversy. Johnson's usage differs somewhat from Graff's original concept. While Graff advocated that a comprehensive understanding of what are considered to be "established" concepts must include teaching the debates and conflicts by which they were established, Johnson appropriated the phrase to cast doubt upon the very concept of established knowledge.〔(The Crusade Against Evolution ), Evan Ratliff, October 2004, ''Wired'' magazine〕
The phrase was picked up by other Discovery Institute affiliates Stephen C. Meyer, David K. DeWolf, and Mark E. DeForrest in their 1999 article, "Teaching the Controversy: Darwinism, Design and the Public School Science Curriculum"〔(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〕 published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics also publishes the controversial pro-intelligent design biology textbook ''Of Pandas and People'', suggested as an alternative to mainstream science and biology textbooks in the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plans proposed by Teach the Controversy proponents.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Teach the Controversy」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|