|
Juicio del Mono, segunda edición. |
|
|
|
|
Escrito por Administrator
|
|
04.05.2005 |
Ese es el título de esta nota en Página/12
donde Leonardo Moledo nos cuenta sobre las audiencias públicas que
tendrán lugar en Kansas, EEUU, para decidir sobre continuar con la
enseñanza o no de la "teoría de la evolución". El autor hace una
interpretación política del problema que nosotros desde ASALUP
recomendamos leer.
Sobre el mismo tema, recomendamos también ver las objeciones del comité
cientifico que asesora al consejo de educación de Kansas en este documento.
A continuación, mostramos algunos párrafos relevantes (en inglés):
Do not be intimidated into including the words "...the theory of..."
prior to standards dealing with evolution. Those words would
apply equally to ANY and ALL of the science standards. By
including them with evolution and excluding them elsewhere,
you communicate that the science of evolution is less valid than
other sciences. We don't want to mislead our educators and the
general public based on what is written in our standards.
Also, the footnote that "...understanding does not mandate
belief..." needs to be removed for two reasons. First, it
confuses the nature of science through the use of the word
"belief", meaning taking something as true without having any
evidence. "Belief", by definition, is not part of science at all.
Second, as with including "...the theory of.." in this section and
nowhere else in the standards, including the "...belief..." footnote
here sends the distinct message that these parts of the
standards are less important and less valid than the rest.
We don't mandate "belief" in atoms, electromagnetic radiation,
gravity, energy, genetics, or any other science topic either. We
don't mandate "belief" that 2+2=4. We don't mandate "belief"
that Shakespeare existed. We don't need a disclaimer to that
effect in ny other standard, and we don't need it here.
I am writing in regards to the 12th grade Standard 3, Benchmark
3 dealing with understanding the major concepts of the theory of
biological evolution. This section accurately represents
evolution. Therefore it should be retained in the science
standards without being diluted by anti-evolutionary or intelligent
design comments. However, I do feel that the statement that
understanding does not equal belief has no place in this
standard. If it needs to be addresses, it should be at the
introduction or in standard 7, as this statement applies to all
knowledge, be it scientifically or otherwise obtained.
While science considers all evidence
against current theory, science education cannot be burdened
with the responsibility to teach students all ideas that are being
examined.
Teachers also must be aware of the court rulings, at both the
state and federal levels, that explicitly prohibit the teaching of
"creationism", "creation science", "intelligent design", or any
other non-science, faith-based explanation as part of a public
school science curriculum. |
|
Última modificación ( 06.05.2005 )
|
