S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s a bit childish of you to play games like this. If you know what “EES” means, why not simply tell me?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Check in one of the journals you recently linked.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Buffalo, is your kind of childishness typical of YECs and IDCs? It’s not how my scholarly colleagues and I typically work; if someone doesn’t understand a piece of scientific or theological shorthand we enlighten her or him, rather than playing a juvenile power game of withholding information.
StAnastasia
R
rossum
Guest
AcronymFinder gave me 34 definitions of EES. Seventeen related to science and medicine:Escrow(ed) Encryption Standard
Erythromycin Ethylsuccinate (brand name)
Environmental Effects Statement
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety (journal)
Earth Exploration Satellite
Environmental Engineering Society (Australia)
Earth and Environmental Science Division
Energy and Environmental Studies
Earth Electrode System
Electrical Equipment Section
Elastomeric Ejection System
English Engineering System
Eyewitness Encyclopedia of Science
Environmental Effects Subcommittee
Electro-Encephaloscope
Engineering Enterprise System
Eclipse Environmental Solutions LLC (Horn Lake, MS)
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Thanks, rossum. None of these jump out as the immediately obvious referent, but my guess is that “EES” is referring to “Elastomeric Ejection System” or “Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.”
Don’t you like guessing games?
StAnastasia
R
reggieM
Guest
I find that suprising also. It’s an abbreviation that is very commonly used.
B
buffalo
Guest
Now I am not so surprised by StA by rossum, I figured he would rescue her.
R
rossum
Guest
AFAIK St Anastasia is male. Though it might surprise you the one of those I know most about is Escrow Encryption Standard since that is relevant to the area I worked in - computers. However it is now obsolete as it specifies Skipjack.Now I am not so surprised by StA by rossum, I figured he would rescue her.
The point of my post was that EES has a number of other possible meanings as well as Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, which I assume is the one you meant. That EES is a synonym of ToE.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, you asked me why I focused on Darwin (and that I am supposedly “obsessed”) since “science has moved on”.
Now you claim that Darwin’s ideas have not been refuted, but science has moved on anyway. Apparently, any attempt to question Darwin’s supposedly-unfalsified ideas is an exercise in “freeze-drying” science. Apparently, we should embrace all of his speculations and conjectures because they’re all, supposedly-correct - Darwin was a great man, there is a statue of him, etc. But this is a worshipful, not rational, attitude towards the man.
So, I don’t see your response bringing more clarity to your own concern – but rather confusing it more.
Here’s another reason why their remains a focus and interest in Darwin. Perhaps Time Magazine is “obsessed” also?
The Dark Side of Darwin’s Legacy
But how can we teach Darwin (in schools) and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn’t his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world’s religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.
All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
… What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It’s helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you for the reference, reggieM. It shows that Mr. Darwin and his book were seized upon to assist in broadening a “public relations” program. Evolutionary psychology will reduce our behaviors to genetic bits and we will engineer ourselves. Visions of the classic ‘mad scientist’ assembling Frankenstein come to mind. But there will be no ignorant villagers with torches and pitchforks. Scientists will simply convince the President that it will be ‘for the good of the people.’
And I am reminded again of the devil in the Garden: “Ye shall be as gods.”
Should this become possible, the military will dump serious (taxpayer) dollars into it.
Peace,
Ed
And I am reminded again of the devil in the Garden: “Ye shall be as gods.”
Should this become possible, the military will dump serious (taxpayer) dollars into it.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know where you get the idea that “we should embrace all of his speculations and conjectures because they’re all, supposedly-correct.” I don’t know any scientists who take that position. I don’t know any who worship him. Biological science has moved well beyond Darwin in the 150 years since he published the Origin of Species, just as physics has moved well beyond Newton. Biology is not frozen at Darwin any more than physics is frozen at Newton.
StAnastasia
E
edwest2
Guest
But Darwin is marketed just like any celebrity. Or did we not just celebrate the 150th anniversary of the work of this "important’ man?
Just run over to the Darwin Central web site. I think it captures the current secular tone/effect well.
Peace,
Ed
Just run over to the Darwin Central web site. I think it captures the current secular tone/effect well.
Peace,
Ed
R
reggieM
Guest
Is there a third option? 1. You don’t think that we should necessarily embrace all of Darwin’s ideas. 2. You consider criticism of Darwin’s ideas to be irrelevant since science has moved on.
Again, I don’t think you’re making yourself clear here. Why should science “move on” if it cannot or has not critiqued Darwin’s ideas? If Darwin’s ideas have not been irrefuted or falsified, what does “moving on” mean?
It will be helpful to consider the difference between “worship” and “worshipful attitude”.
Since the claim has been made that Darwin’s ideas have not been refuted, then science has not “moved on”. His ideas form the basis of evolutionary theory. Supposedly, they have not been falsified.
Newton’s theory of Gravity was falsified (in certain conditions) by Relativity Theory. So again, what you’re saying is not clear or precise. You’re comparing Darwin’s theory to Newton’s. As stated, Newton’s ideas of gravity were refuted by Einstein’s. You use the term “moved on” as if it has some definite meaning.
If Darwin’s ideas have not been falsified, then biology is certainly frozen at Darwin – and science cannot “move well beyond” those ideas.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Lincoln is marketed too. Does that invalidate his Emancipation Proclamation?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m not sure where you are going with this, Reggie. Of course science has critiqued Darwin’s ideas. What do you think Mendelian genetics is about? Or DNA? Or biogeography? Or endosymbiosis? Or punctuated equilibrium? Science has critiqued Darwin since the day Origin of Species was published, and continues to do so. But most people are not so obsessed with Darwin.
E
edwest2
Guest
There is a constant, ongoing obsession here and in the secular press to just say yes to Mr. Darwin’s idea. “Evolution is a fact” has become a mantra. This eternal vigilence for any dissenters and campaign for acceptance amounts to an obsession.
Two strangers who meet each other in public might have a discussion about this. Assuming one thinks evolution happened and the other does not, the conversation proceeds. If no one changes their position after they are done, perhaps they find they have other things in common but perhpas not. In either case, the conversation ends.
Not here. There is no actual debate, just window dressing debate to engineer consent.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Ah, Darwin again? I’d say you are obsessed, Ed. Do you know there have been scientific developments since his day?
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve seen way too much defense of Darwin here to come to only one conclusion: he is the father of intellectually satisfied anti-God thinking. Before Darwin, it was just, I don’t believe in god.
Peace,
Ed
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I would say you are Darwin-obsessed. I don’t see the “defense of Darwin” that you see.
- Status