Opinion piece from Discovery Institute in Boston Globe

[Merc]

This is an op ed piece that was written by Stephen C. Meyer from the Discover Institute back on July 15th. Feel free to laugh, I know I did.

DISCOVERY INSTITUTE'S OPINION PIECE

The Boston Globe made a stupid mistake by publishing that piece, especially since they're such a well-respected newspaper. It doesn't help matters that they're located in an area housing a large population of individuals with advanced degrees. Luckily, one of those advanced-degree holding citizens shot a letter off that made it into the 'Letters to the Editor' section 5 days later.

HARVARD PSYCHOLOGIST STRIKES BACK AGAINST DISCOVERY INSTITUTE OP ED PIECE

 

[IrBubble]

Is this argument really still being used? Come on, who cares what Thomas Jefferson thought on the issue? He was not even a scientist, and good a person as he may have been, his opinion is totally irrevelant, not the least because it's used to argue against a theory which he was never alive to hear.

 

[Merc]

Thomas Jefferson had a hobby in sciences but what's amusing is that if he hadn't died 33 years before Darwin's "Origin of Species" came out he would've supported it. Thomas Jefferson was a known deist and one of the founders of the Unitarian Universalist movement in the United States.

Within the right-wing population there has been a major revival in recent years over the Founding Fathers and what they would have wanted for the country. By using the Founding Fathers they try to take away ammo from the left because criticizing the Founding Fathers here is equivalent to being unpatriotic. This is similar to what is happening in Iran with the election controversy; by having the opposition wear green, which is a national color, they cannot be punished by the police without the police looking unpatriotic. Obviously it's not that black and white (some people wearing green in Iran are being arrested and some people in the United States slam the Founding Fathers) but that's what the aim is with the right wing movement. They're using Thomas Jefferson in an effort to appeal to national pride. It's all a facade and a very poor one at that.

 

[e2iPi]

Is it only me, or did anybody else get irritated at seeing the Declaration of Independence misquoted?

It is absolutely true that unalienable and inalienable have the exact same meaning, however when you place something inside quotation marks, it is supposed to be an EXACT quotation, not something else which means the same thing. The Declaration of Independence uses the term 'unalienable' not 'inalienable'
For someone who is very good at finding any word or phrase uttered by a scientist or person of renown which may cast doubt on the idea of naturalistic evolution, this is just sloppy work.

Sorry, I'm not usually a grammar-nazi, but for some reason that just irked me.

i^2

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

pinker is one of my fav authors. I'm bias though snce I'm a pschology student.

 

[borrofburi]

Within the right-wing population there has been a major revival in recent years over the Founding Fathers and what they would have wanted for the country. By using the Founding Fathers they try to take away ammo from the left because criticizing the Founding Fathers here is equivalent to being unpatriotic.

I'd hate to hijack this thread but... This issue of "the founding fathers" and their importance is not mere left/right. It's the libertarians that are for a smaller government and go back to the constitution and the founding fathers as well as history and austrian economic theory to promote (and defend) their position of a smaller government. Republicans have noticed this and have realized that "the founding fathers" is a good way to get support; some of this is rooted in the history of the republican party, having been, at some points in the past, the party promoting smaller government and return to the constitution (as opposed to now in which both parties are for a bigger government doing different things). So in some senses you are correct, some of this "founding father" stuff is a "right-wing" appeal to national pride, but that's not what is primarily meant to be: an appeal to history in order to promote smaller government.

To say this is "just a facade" to "appeal to national pride" by "the right" is incorrect at best, and purposefully perpetuating partisan misinformation at worst.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'd hate to hijack this thread but... This issue of "the founding fathers" and their importance is not mere left/right. It's the libertarians that are for a smaller government and go back to the constitution and the founding fathers as well as history and austrian economic theory to promote (and defend) their position of a smaller government. Republicans have noticed this and have realized that "the founding fathers" is a good way to get support; some of this is rooted in the history of the republican party, having been, at some points in the past, the party promoting smaller government and return to the constitution (as opposed to now in which both parties are for a bigger government doing different things). So in some senses you are correct, some of this "founding father" stuff is a "right-wing" appeal to national pride, but that's not what is primarily meant to be: an appeal to history in order to promote smaller government.

To say this is "just a facade" to "appeal to national pride" by "the right" is incorrect at best, and purposefully perpetuating partisan misinformation at worst.

The libertarians are more full of shit than the Republicans and Democrats combined. "Smaller government" is a nonsensical statement used by people who don't have actual answers to problems.

 

[borrofburi]

The libertarians are more full of shit than the Republicans and Democrats combined. "Smaller government" is a nonsensical statement used by people who don't have actual answers to problems.

Regardless of whether I agree, disagree, and whether you are wrong or right, it doesn't change my desire for a correct representation of appeals to constitution and founding fathers.

 

[Natusaurus]

If you're interested in general comments on Stephen Meyer's articles, I would recommend Robert Pennock's essay 'DNA by Design?' in 'Debating Design', edited by William Dembski (yes, him) and Michael Ruse.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Regardless of whether I agree, disagree, and whether you are wrong or right, it doesn't change my desire for a correct representation of appeals to constitution and founding fathers.

Yeah, but more importantly, who gives a shit what they thought? What the fuck does it matter if some dead slave owner was for "smaller government," or for Jesus, or other nonsensical concepts?

 

[e2iPi]

Yeah, but more importantly, who gives a shit what they thought? What the fuck does it matter if some dead slave owner was for "smaller government," or for Jesus, or other nonsensical concepts?

It doesn't matter at all. The entire argument is ridiculous because it is nothing more than a giant appeal to authority with an emotional twist because Americans tend to view the founding fathers as some how having greater "wisdom" that is present in the world today. Of course that's a load of bull, but it still tends effectively sway public opinion.

i^2

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It doesn't matter at all. The entire argument is ridiculous because it is nothing more than a giant appeal to authority with an emotional twist because Americans tend to view the founding fathers as some how having greater "wisdom" that is present in the world today. Of course that's a load of bull, but it still tends effectively sway public opinion.

i^2

The important wisdom that they had is that they knew that the world would change, and put in place methods of changing the laws in order to adapt to changing circumstances. Only an idiot would say something like "good enough for them should be good enough for us"... unless, of course, you are Amish. :lol: