معهد ديسكڤري

معهد ديسكڤري
Discovery Institute
معهد ديسكڤري; Discovery Institute
التأسيس	1994
الوضع القانوني	لا ربحي
المقر الرئيسي	سياتل، واشنطن، الولايات المتحدة
الرئيس	بروس تشاپمان
الميزانية	4,334,124 دولار في السنة المالية 2007.
الموقع الإلكتروني	www.discovery.org

جزء من سلسلة

التصميم الذكي

المفاهيم

الأنظمة المعقدة غير القابلة للاختزال
التعقيدات المتخصصة
التوافق الدقيق للكون
المصمم الذكي
الواقعية الإلوهية

حركة التصميم الذكي

معهد ديسكڤري
مركز العلوم و الثقافة
استراتيجية الوتد
تحليل نقدي للتطور
تعليم الخلاف
التصميم الذكي في السياسة
تعديل سانتورَم

معهد ديسكڤري Discovery Institute هو معهد أبحاث سياسية غير ربحي أمريكي مقره في سياتل، واشنطن، اشتهر لتأييده للتصميم الذكي. تهدف حملته تعليم المجادلة إلى تعليم الاعتقادات التي تؤمن بنظرية الخلق المناهضة للتطور، في المقررات العلمية بالمدارس الثانوية الأمريكية بجانب النظريات العلمية المقبولة، وطرح المجادلة العلمية القائمة حول هذه الموضوعات.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

المحكمة الفدرالية، بجانب الجمعيات العلمية الكبرى، ومنها الاتحاد الأمريكي لتقدم العلوم، تقول أن المعهد يثير الجدل ما يريد تعليمه من خلال تعزيز التصور الخاطئ للتطور على أنه "نظرية في أزمة"،^[7] من خلال زعم خاطئ بأنه موضوع جدل ونقاش واسع في المجتمع العلمي.^[8]^[9]^[10] في 2005، أصدرت المحكمة الفدرالية حكمها بأن معهد ديسكڤري يتبنى "مهمات دينية، ثقافية وقانونية واضحة"،^[7]^[9]^[11] وبيان المعهد استراتيجية ودج،^[12] تصف هدف ديني: "تعكس الهيمنة الخانقة للنظرية المادية، وتستبدلها بالتوافق العلمي والقناعات المسيحية والإيمانية".^[13]^[14] كان رأي المحكمة الفدرالية أن التصميم الذكي كان مجرد تصحيح لنظرية الخلق، ولم يكن طرح علمي.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

التنظيم

المسؤولون والمديرون والزملاء

الرئيس^[15]

بروس تشاپمان

نواب الرئيس

ستڤن ج. بوري

مجلس الادارة

هوارد أهمانسون، الإبن
توم ألبرگ
تشارلز ك باربو
بروس شاپمان
روبرت ج. سيهاك
سكيپ گيليلاند
سلاد گورتون
ريتشارد ر. گريلينگ
پاتريشيا هربولد
بوب كلي
بيرون نوتلي
جيمس سپادي
مايكل ك. ڤاسكا
ريموند ج. والدمان

مستشار البرنامج

فيليپ إ. جونسون

كبار الزملاء

زملاء مساعدون

هوارد ل. شاپمان
فرنك ديلو
إدوين ميس
روبرت سپيتزر

زملاء سابقون

يوري ي. ماتشور
ڤنسنت فيليپ مونوز
جيمس ج. نا
مارك ريلاند
برت سوانسون
وليم توكر
جوناثان ويلز
بنجامين ويكر
ريتشارد ويكارت

مركز العلم والثقافة

المعهد البيولوجي

البرامج

التوجه الرئيسي للمعهد من حيث التمويل والموارد المخصصة يتجه للحملات السياسية والثقافية التي تركز حول التصميم الذكي، وتشمل:

التصميم الذكي وتعليم المجادلة

مقالة مفصلة: حملات معهد ديسكڤري للتصميم الذكي

مركز كاسكيديا

التكنولوجيا والديمقراطية

مشروع روسيا الحقيقية

ك. س. لويس والحياة العامة

الجدالات

مؤسسة تمپلتون

المواقع المتعلقة بالتصميم الذكي

التمويل

انظر أيضاً

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

المصادر

^ خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة charitynavigator.org
^ Forrest, Barbara (May 2007) (PDF). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.. Archived from the original. You must specify the date the archive was made using the |archivedate= parameter. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-08-06
^ Harris, Dan (November 9, 2005). "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". ABC News. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
^ "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. Retrieved on 2008-07-23
^ 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
^ ^أ ^ب Saletan, William (2005-12-21). "Is Creationism Destructible?". Slate (magazine). Retrieved March 6, 2010.
^ "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
^ ^أ ^ب "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
^ Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.
^ Luskin, Casey (September 8, 2006). "Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part IV: The "Wedge Document"". Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
^ "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? 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".
^ Tapper, Jake (February 22, 2007). "McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire". ABC News. Retrieved December 5, 2007.
^ "About Discovery". Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2010.

وصلات خارجية

الموقع الرسمي لمعهد ديسكڤري

الكلمات الدالة:

[charitynavigator.org-1] خطأ استشهاد: وسم <ref> غير صحيح؛ لا نص تم توفيره للمراجع المسماة charitynavigator.org

[ForrestMayPaper-2] Forrest, Barbara (May 2007) (PDF). Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc.. Archived from the original. You must specify the date the archive was made using the |archivedate= parameter. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-08-06

[abc-3] Harris, Dan (November 9, 2005). "Small Group Wields Major Influence in Intelligent Design Debate". ABC News. Retrieved June 24, 2010.

[4] "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. Retrieved on 2008-07-23

[5] 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."

[6] 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

[slate-7] أ ^ب Saletan, William (2005-12-21). "Is Creationism Destructible?". Slate (magazine). Retrieved March 6, 2010.

[kitzmiller_pg89-8] "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

[nejm-9] أ ^ب "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

[AAAS-10] "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

[11] Ruling, page 131 Kitzmiller v. Dover.

[DI-12] Luskin, Casey (September 8, 2006). "Response to Barbara Forrest's Kitzmiller Account Part IV: The "Wedge Document"". Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2010.

[wedge_and_response-13] "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? 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".

[14] Tapper, Jake (February 22, 2007). "McCain Speech Tied to Intelligent Design Group Draws Fire". ABC News. Retrieved December 5, 2007.

[about_discovery-15] "About Discovery". Discovery Institute. Retrieved June 24, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]