Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Creazionismo & democrazia

From The Washington Post, 3/14/05:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32444-2005Mar13.html
Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 14, 2005; Page A01
WICHITA --
Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's
political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how
students are taught about the origins of life.
Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the
science of evolution.
The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or
introducing biblical accounts.
Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider
gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea
of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator.
The growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it
a masked effort to replace science with theology.
But 80 years after the Scopes "monkey" trial -- in which a Tennessee
man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching evolution -- it
is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say
they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment.
They are acting now because they feel emboldened by the country's
conservative currents and by President Bush, who angered many
scientists and teachers by declaring that the jury is still out on
evolution.
Sharing strong convictions, deep pockets and impressive political
credentials -- if not always the same goals -- the activists are
building a sizable network.
In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1
million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting
intelligent design.
In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a
Creation Studies Institute.
In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega
Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which
raised $9 million in 2003.
At the state and local level, from South Carolina to California, these
advocates are using lawsuits and school board debates to counter
evolutionary theory.
Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow
teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom.
Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing
that.
And a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted
on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven.
A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of
Education intends to revise teaching standards.
That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said,
because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."
The movement is "steadily growing," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive
director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends
the teaching of evolution.
"The energy level is new. The religious right has had an effect
nationally. Now, by golly, they want to call in the chits."
Not Science, Politics
Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone
created man or had a guiding hand.
Advocates invoke the First Amendment and say the current campaigns are
partly about respect for those beliefs.
"It's an academic freedom proposal. What we would like to foment is a
civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of
the fairway of American pluralism," said the Discovery Institute's
Stephen C. Meyer, who believes evolution alone cannot explain life's
unfurling.
"We are interested in seeing that spread state by state across the
country."
Some evolution opponents are trying to use Bush's No Child Left Behind
law, saying it creates an opening for states to set new teaching
standards.
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery
Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said
students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that
exist."
"Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is
shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview.
"My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling
is let the debate be had."
Although the new strategy speaks of "teaching the controversy" over
evolution, opponents insist the controversy is not scientific, but
political.
They paint the approach 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 Barry W. Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
"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."
Although many backers of intelligent design oppose the biblical
account that God created the world in six days, the Christian right is
increasingly mobilized, Baylor University scholar Barry G. Hankins
said.
He noted the recent hiring by the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary of Discovery Institute scholar and prominent intelligent
design proponent William A. Dembski.
The seminary said the move, along with the creation of a Center for
Science and Theology, was central to developing a "comprehensive
Christian worldview."
"As the Christian right has success on a variety of issues, it
emboldens them to expand their agenda," Hankins said.
"When they have losses . . . it gives them fuel for their fire."
Deferring the Debate
The efforts are not limited to schools.
From offices overlooking Puget Sound, Meyer is waging a careful
campaign to change the way Americans think about the natural world.
The Discovery Institute devotes about 85 percent of its budget to
funding scientists, with other money going to public action campaigns.
Discovery Institute raised money for "Unlocking the Mystery of Life,"
a DVD produced by Illustra Media and shown on PBS stations in major
markets.
The institute has sponsored opinion polls and underwrites research for
books sold in secular and Christian bookstores.
Its newest project is to establish a science laboratory.
Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives
as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total
integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan
Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the
Scripture."
"We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said.
"Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the
interesting part."
Meyer said he and Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman devised
the compromise strategy in March 2002 when they realized a dispute
over intelligent design was complicating efforts to challenge
evolution in the classroom.
They settled on the current approach that stresses open debate and
evolution's ostensible weakness, but does not require students to
study design.
The idea was to sow doubt about Darwin and buy time for the 40-plus
scientists affiliated with the institute to perfect the theory, Meyer
said.
Also, by deferring a debate about whether God was the intelligent
designer, the strategy avoids the defeats suffered by creationists who
tried to oust evolution from the classroom and ran afoul of the
Constitution.
"Our goal is to not remove evolution. Good lord, it's incredible how
much this is misunderstood," said William Harris, a professor at the
University of Missouri at Kansas City medical school.
"Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and
weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is
extrapolation."
Harris does not favor teaching intelligent design, although he
believes there is more to the story than evolution.
"To say God did not play a role is arrogant," Harris said.
"It's far beyond the data."
Harris teamed up with John H. Calvert, a retired corporate lawyer who
calls the debate over the origins of life "the most fundamental issue
facing the culture."
They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested
legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy
conference.
The 2001 conference presented its Wedge of Truth award to members of
the 1999 Kansas Board of Education that played down evolution and
allowed local boards to decide what students would learn.
A board elected in 2001 overturned that decision, but a fresh batch of
conservatives won office in November, when Bush swamped his Democratic
opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), here by 62 to 37 percent.
"The thing that excites me is we really are in a revolution of
scientific thought," Calvert said.
He described offering advice in such places as Minnesota, New Mexico,
Ohio and Cobb County, Ga., where a federal court recently halted an
attempt to affix a sticker to science textbooks saying evolution is
theory, not fact.
'Liberalism Will Die'
Despite some disagreement, Calvert, Harris and the Discovery Institute
collectively favor efforts to change state teaching standards.
Bypassing the work of a 26-member science standards committee that
rejected revisions, the Kansas board's conservative majority recently
announced a series of "scientific hearings" to discuss evolution and
its critics.
The board's chairman, Steve Abrams, said he is seeking space for
students to "critically analyze" the evidence.
That approach appeals to Cindy Duckett, a Wichita mother who believes
public school leaves many religious children feeling shut out.
Teaching doubts about evolution, she said, is "more inclusive. I think
the more options, the better."
"If students only have one thing to consider, one option, that's
really more brainwashing," said Duckett, who sent her children to
Christian schools because of her frustration.
Students should be exposed to the Big Bang, evolution, intelligent
design "and, beyond that, any other belief that a kid in class has. It
should all be okay."
Fox -- pastor of the largest Southern Baptist church in the Midwest,
drawing 6,000 worshipers a week to his Wichita church -- said the
compromise is an important tactic.
"The strategy this time is not to go for the whole enchilada. We're
trying to be a little more subtle," he said.
To fundamentalist Christians, Fox said, the fight to teach God's role
in creation is becoming the essential front in America's culture war.
The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends.
If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the
Christian right's agenda will advance.
"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder
to get rid of that baby," Fox said.
"If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."
Like Meyer, Fox is glad to make common cause with people who do not
entirely agree.
"Creationism's going to be our big battle. We're hoping that Kansas
will be the model, and we're in it for the long haul," Fox said.
He added that it does not matter "who gets the credit, as long as we
win."

nel paese tempio della ricerca scientifica, ma anche della demenza mondiale, 
stiamo aspettando che nelle scuole sostituiscano l'insegnamento del modello 
copernicano con quello tolemaico 

 copernicano con quello tolemaico
Se non fosse che l'"Intelligent Design" è stato AFFIANCATO alla teoria
dell'evoluzionismo, non è stata SOSTITUITA ad essa. Nè tali teorie sono
mutamente esclusive.
Raffaele
-- 
Raffaele Castagno
Mail me if you want a GMAIL account.
Not only bad news: 
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com
Iraq Linux User Group : 
http://www.iraqilinux.org
Strategic Blog: 
http://strategic-game.blogspot.com/
Strategic Sourceforge Homepage: 
http://strategic.sourceforge.net/
Strategic Sourceforge Project: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/strategic/
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 mutamente esclusive.
tu a quale delle due dai maggior credito castagno?
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 tu a quale delle due dai maggior credito castagno?
Nessuna, sono entrambi valutabili.


 Nessuna, sono entrambi valutabili.
cioe' per te sono 50 e 50 veritiere?


 cioe' per te sono 50 e 50 veritiere?
No, per me sono semplicemente entrambe meritevoli di essere insegnate e
studiate. Ti ricordo che, sebbene avvalorata da vari indizi, quella
dell'evoluzionismo E' e RESTA una TEORIA, non una LEGGE.


 dell'evoluzionismo E' e RESTA una TEORIA, non una LEGGE.
e l'altra da quale indizi e' avvalorata?


 e l'altra da quale indizi e' avvalorata?
Quando qualcuno supererà i pregiudizi e deciderà di studiarla ed 
ampliarla, magari si scoprirà qualcosa. Intanto ci sono tanti buchi 
nella teoria evoluzionistica nella quale si calano a pennello le teorie 
dell'Intelligent Design (ocio, non "creazionistmo divino". Il 
"creazionismo divino" fa parte dell'Intelligent Design, non il contrario...)
Raffaele

 Raffaele
Pensi di aver detto qualcosa? Be' non hai detto nulla.
Non esiste un 'punto di vista' scientifico. Esiste la scienza, 
falsificabile, e il creazionismo, che non e' falsificabile, perche'  non 
e' scienza.
Ci deve essere qualcuno che crea? E chi l'ha detto, visto che 
visibilmente il marchingegno va avanti da solo?
Eppoi come faresti a dimostrare di non aver creato tu quello che ha 
creato?
Lo hai visto forse in te stesso? Sai per caso con certezza se sei creato 
o increato? Su base di quale certezza? E tutte le specie dovrebbero 
aspettare la tua autorizzazione? Be' vanno avanti senza la tua 
autorizzazione. E secondo quello che tu scrivi in altri post, lo fanno 
secondo la legge del piu' adatto, cioe' del piu' forte nella tua 
ideologia.
Tu ti senti il piu' adatto perche' stai sempre dal lato del piu' forte?
Be' anche il Tirannosaurus Rex ha tirato i remi in barca e non certo per 
intervento divino, Piu' probabilmente per uno climatico.
E anche i grandi imperi non finiscono con un bang ma con uno whimper...
Ti ricorda niente?
Am.

 ampliarla, magari si scoprirà qualcosa. 
cioe' in altre parole mi stai dicendo che non si ha nulla di concreto che
avvalori questa teoria che si vuole contrapporre all'evoluzionismo.
E malgrado cio' la si vuole insegnare ? ma ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- 
togli le VVV per scrivermi


 dell'evoluzionismo E' e RESTA una TEORIA, non una LEGGE.
Scusa leggi qualche libro di biologia "sul campo" e scoprirari che gli
animali e le piante si sono indubbiamente evolute. I primi pesci non
avevano la bocca quelli successivi si, come lo spieghi? Sai cosa è
l'anatomia comparata la cladistica?

 l'anatomia comparata la cladistica?
L'evoluzionismo č ancora incompleta, ci sono ancora dei salti evolutivi
non spiegati.
Raffaaele


 non spiegati.
quello tra rettili ed uccelli è stato spiegato (gli uccelli ora hanno
posizione tassonomica certa) e anche quello tra mammiferi e rettili la
cladistica infomatizzata ultimamente sta ha dato un'accelerata notevole
alla classificazione (e quindi alla descrizione del percorso evolutivo)
degli esseri viventi ci sono sempre meno dubbi in seno, per dirti negli
ultimi 10-15 anni hanno trovato classificazione certa il 70% delle specie
di dinosauro scoperte dal 1824 ad oggi mentre nei 100 anni precedenti solo
il 20%.

 forza di gravità, o delle leggi della termodinamica
Falso: le evidenze erano sotto gli occhi di tutti, da sempre.

 si prese la briga di studiarle dal punto di vista SCIENTIFICO.
Sì, ma queste teorie sono state inserite nei programmi d'insegnamento
scolastico e universitario solo DOPO che qualcuno è riuscito a PROVARLE
scientificamente.
Anche perché, diversamente da quanto tu sembri credere, in assenza di prove
scientifiche non si può parlare di "teorie" ma, al massio, di "ipotesi di
lavoro".
--
Cingar


 non spiegati.
Veramente i "salti evolutivi" sono proprio una teoria e anche abbastanza 
sensata.
Come sai secondo l'evoluzionismo le mutazioni sono casuali e quelle che 
presentano un vantaggio evolutivo danno al portatore la possibilità di 
vivere più a lungo degli altri, di riprodursi in misura maggiore e 
quindi, nel lungo periodo, di soppiantare i membri della sua specie che 
non hanno la mutazione.
Un tempo si pensava che le mutazioni fossero molto piccole e che quindi 
l'evoluzione richiedesse molto tempo e fosse graduale, ma nessuno ci 
vieta di pensare che possano accadere anche mutazioni molto più evidenti 
e queste possano presentare un vantaggio evolutivo ancora superiore: 
ecco un salto evolutivo.
Da molto da pensare il fatto che il nostro codice genetico sia 
estremamente simile a quello delle scimmie (combaciano per più del 90% 
mi pare), non è quindi impossibile che il cosidetto anello mancante tra 
scimmia e uomo non sia stato trovato semplicemente perchè non esiste.
Riot
-- 
Gli ottimisti credono che viviamo nel migliore dei mondi possibili.
I pessimisti temono che sia vero.

 E malgrado cio' la si vuole insegnare ? ma ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Continui ad inventare sulle dichiarazioni degli altri? Trovami una sola 
singola frase nella quale io dichiaro di voler CONTRAPPORRE 
evoluzionismo ed intelligent design...
Raffaele

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:423c59d0$0$6312$5fc...@news.tiscali.it...
