Newsgroup: it.scienza.biologia
Titolo: Disegno intelligente

La evoluzione è una teoria non un fatto.Le lobbies scientiste si sono
mobilitate anche contro questa sacrosanta verità! Carriere a rischio?Libri
da riscrivere?Quali interessi inconfessabili ci sono dietro le tetragone
prese di posizione pro-evoluzione?
----------------------------------------------------
'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms
By ALAN I. LESHNER
GUEST COLUMNIST
In Cobb County, Ga., controversy erupted this spring when school board
officials decided to affix "disclaimer stickers" to science textbooks,
alerting students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the
origin of living things."
The stickers were the Cobb County District School Board's response to
intelligent design theory, which holds that the complexity of DNA and the
diversity of life forms on our planet and beyond can be explained only by an
extra-natural intelligent agent. The ID movement -- reminiscent of
creationism but more nuanced and harder to label -- has been quietly gaining
momentum in a number of states for several years, especially Georgia and
Ohio.
Stickers on textbooks are only the latest evidence of the ID movement's
successes to date, though Cobb County officials did soften their position
somewhat in September following a lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia. In a subsequent policy statement, officials said
the biological theory of evolution is a "disputed view" that must be
"balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other, religious teachings.
Surely, few would begrudge ID advocates their views or the right to discuss
the concept as part of religious studies. At issue, rather, is whether ID
theory, so far unproven by scientific facts, should be served to students on
the same platter with the well-supported theory of evolution.
How the Cobb County episode will affect science students remains uncertain
since, as the National Center for Science Education noted, the amended
policy statement included "mixed signals."
But it's clear that the ID movement is quickly emerging as one of the more
significant threats to U.S. science education, fueled by a sophisticated
marketing campaign based on a three-pronged penetration of the scientific
community, educators and the general public.
In Ohio, the state's education board on Oct. 14 passed a unanimous though
preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms.
But the board's ruling left the door open for local school districts to
present ID theory together with science and suggested that scientists should
"continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary
theory."
In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry
Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to
support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in
classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
Undaunted by tens of thousands of e-mails it has already received on the
topic, the state's education board is now gamely inviting further public
comment through November. In December, Ohio's Board of Education will vote
to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be
included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about
science at different grade levels.
Meanwhile, ID theorists reportedly have been active in Missouri, Kansas, New
Mexico, New Jersey and other states as well as Ohio and Georgia.
What do scientists think of all this? We have great problems with the claim
that ID is a scientific theory or a science-based alternative to
evolutionary theory. We don't question its religious or philosophical
underpinnings. That's not our business. But there is no scientific evidence
underlying ID theory.
No relevant research has been done; no papers have been published in
scientific journals. Because it has no science base, we believe that ID
theory should be excluded from science curricula in schools.
In fact, the Board of Directors of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest general scientific society in the
world, passed a resolution this month urging policy-makers to keep
intelligent design theory out of U.S. science classrooms.
Noting that the United States has promised to "leave no child behind," the
AAAS Board found that intelligent design theory -- if presented within
science courses as factually based -- is likely to confuse American
schoolchildren and undermine the integrity of U.S. science education. At a
time when standards-based learning and performance assessments are
paramount, children would be better served by keeping scientific information
separate from religious concepts.
Certainly, American society supports and encourages a broad range of
viewpoints and the scientific community is no exception. While this
diversity enriches the educational experience for students, science and
conceptual belief systems should not be co-mingled, as ID proponents have
repeatedly proposed.
The ID argument that random mutations in nature and natural selection, for
example, are too complex for scientific explanation is an interesting -- and
for some, highly compelling -- philosophical or theological concept.
Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to
the theory of biological evolution, and it isn't based on science. In sum,
there's no data to back it up, and no way of scientifically testing the
validity of the ideas proposed by ID advocates.
The quality of U.S. science education is at stake here. We live in an era
when science and technology are central to every issue facing our society --
individual and national security, health care, economic prosperity,
employment opportunities.
Children who lack an appropriate grounding in science and mathematics, and
who can't discriminate what is and isn't evidence, are doomed to lag behind
their well-educated counterparts. America's science classrooms are certainly
no place to mix church and state.
Alan I. Leshner is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science and executive publisher of the journal Science; 
www.aaas.org

> La evoluzione è una teoria non un fatto.
E' meglio che tu chieda l'opinione di un allevatore di pastori tedeschi.

 prese di posizione pro-evoluzione?
Hai ragione.
Io personalmente, grazie all'evoluzionismo, guadagno 3.500.000 euro
all'anno, tutti in nero.
E chissa' quanti altri sono nelle mie stesse condizioni.
Ne e' pieno il mondo.
Anche gli antievoluzionisti guadagnano un sacco, con i loro libretti
scandalistici.
Quasi quasi cambio bandiera.

tre ragioni per cui ti consiglio caldamente di smettere di postare in questo
tono (non intendo di questi argomenti, ma è la modalità che va cambiata)
1: Anche se per adesso c'è chi ti risponde, ben presto si deciderà di
ignorarti per far si che la nostra sanità mentale venga preservata
2: Dimostri un'eccezionale ignoranza dell'inglese (ostentare ignoranza è a
mio parere molto triste) oppure un'incredibile incapacità di comprendere
quello che hai tradotto
3: Ti rendi decisamente ridicolo
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://usenet.libero.it

 ignorarti per far si che la nostra sanità mentale venga preservata
Hai ragione ... il problema è che sono nuovo in questo NG.
Starò più accorto.
Anche se l'istinto e' forte.
Ciao