Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Attention Darwin’s male fishwives: We’re on to you. And it’s not working.

Denyse O’Leary/ Laszlo Bencze

Sure enough, the only attested example of Darwinian evolution that would really impress the public is just what kairosfocus talks about here: The evolution of the male fishwife.

See, traditionally, guys didn’t shriek abuse the way they do at Darwinist blogs today. And they certainly didn’t publish sexual filth about women they don’t even know. People would think there was something wrong with a guy like that.

Hello, hello, people still do think something must be wrong with a guy like that.

It may be part of the reason that, despite heavy public funding and strong elite support, Darwinism is still stuck at stupid in the polls, and likely to remain so.

There’s some stuff Darwinists just can’t fool people about. They can’t be their own worst advertisement, make a huge public noise, and expect no one to notice or draw any conclusions.

Traditionally, (female) fishwives were allowed to shriek abuse because they had no social power. In a civilized society, moral restraint accompanies social power.

Anyone who wishes to know where unrestrained antics get you on the Internet (assuming the person is important enough that anyone cares) could usefully consult a former American Congressman here. And if the person is not important enough that anyone cares, why do they bother?

Even the (surprising!) evolution of the male fishwife is not going to stop rational assessment of the actual power of Darwinian evolution to explain events in the history of life on Earth. After all, it’s not clear that that variant form has any future.

To all our American readers, happy July 4 from the News desk, and salut!:

Follow UD News at Twitter!

PS: About 2 miles from where I sit just now in Carrs bay. kairosfocus
C: Rendezvous Bay is North, it is still there and still just as nice. Feel welcome to sail by again! There is pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow, good and evil. We need to make the best of it, and our worldview of choice should make sense of it. KF kairosfocus
Kairosfocus: I am going to read all your links. But right now, I'm remembering how happy was for 10 days or so in the "rendezvous bay", Montserrat when I was cruising the caribbean in a small sailboat, that was in 1.996 one year before the nineteen people who died (you know how). In those times enjoying something like a paradise (hot in winter, coral reefs, tropical fish, etc) I thought that If I would invited an atheist from the cold europe (where I live) to show it, he could convince himself that the world is designed. Big mistake, an atheist who feels accomplished with his (anti) religion is soon going to remember me volcanos, hurricanes, mosquito, etc. That is the sad reality I have learnt reading the speech of the army of trolls that dwell intelligent blogs like this one. But it is the consequence of the free will. creatoblepas
Ouch on typos kairosfocus
creatoblepas The subject of the actual moral precepts accepted by an individual is complex. From a Christian perspective per Rom 2 and 13, such a one has implanted in conscience the principle4s of core morality starting with the understanding that we are made in the common image of God and hold equal moral worth. In Rom ch 13:8 - 10 Paul highlights that as Jesus had said, the main strictures of the Law from the Decalogue on, hang from this. (You may wish to look at my discussion of the moral issues at stake here at my personal blog and on how Locke and Hooker give us a platform for speaking this into current situations. Similarly, in my Public Ethics Lecture of 2002 (later published as a paper in CJET, cf here) -- in my native Jamaica, not US, and now I am back in Montserrat [where my wife hails from] -- I spoke to how this same set of principles lies at the root of the proper form of the sustainability principle.) As I outlined, the problem is not that evolutionary materialist atheists are all utterly amoral, or that hey are in practice always more immoral than the rest of us, but that he system of thought undermines the objective foundation of the morality that is implanted in conscience. Conscience guides, it does not control, so it can be suppressed and benumbed by repeated willful defiance and/or impaired by the blinding and warping influences of a broader culture of moral irresponsibility and radical relativism. Thus, the issue raised by Plato, that we are opening a gateway to ruthless nihilistic, destructive, Machiavellian factions. Your physicist friend, seems to be unfortunately quite confused. He needs sound counsel, and perhaps a basic good philosophical primer on ethics. Thankfully he has no access to the means to do much harm. Someone like that working with means to destroy civilisation, should be reported and removed as unfit. We do not need any Dr Strangelove types. Unfortunately, the dominant evo mat tends to undermine support for moral principle, leaving it to politics, manipulation and intimidation. The sort of guttersnipe behaviour we are dealing with is in effec5 a crude form of this. KF kairosfocus
Thank you. I thought that I was met the only mega nihilist in the world, so you have heard about many like that..... Now I am more scared. Anyway, I think that, at the same time that a scientist can be expelled for lend a CD about ID to somebody at work, a nihilist who has access to atomic bombs should be at least investigated (the same that a foraigner who is in the US learning how to fly, and he is not interested in how to land) creatoblepas
creatoblepas, not to worry re English. People get by with much worse in Toronto (and we were born and raised here ;) ) We don't find the male fishwife a danger so much as a nuisance. In fisheries lingo, a non-sport, non-commercial species not essential to the ecology. In other words, an invasive pest. What can you do, really, except point out that the bandwidth and mental space in other people's heads that they occupy could have gone to a thoughtful person? Oh well. Your ex-friend sounds like a nihilist who doesn't live down to his own beliefs. There are surprising numbers of them out there, thank heaven. News
Denyse or KF, please answer this: (First of all, sorry for my english). I wish the only danger from ciber-atheists was the new specie "male fishwife". Yesterday I wanted to send this message to KF but I couldn´t: Of course that atheist and nihilists are moral people. Only that their evolutionary basis are sometimes unconventional. For example I met (becaming enemy soon) an astrophysicist who used to work 22 years monitoring satelites for the european agency. He has a conventional moral, for example he takes care of his old mother, he doesn´t drink, he doesn´t like people who pay prostitutes, he of course tolerates homo-sexuals, and creationists (except when they mock at him for believing in multiverses). But he is a evo-wise of a kind VERY dangerous. He feels compassion for animals suffering, not only by human actions but by themselves: they nourish one from another. His solution for that is crazy but absolutely evo-"logic" and never I have heard about it. The "evo-moral" of that astrophysicist is: to sacrifice himself at the same time than all the planet, finishing with the suffering. In my country there is not nuclear arsenal, and I didn´t go inmediately to the police station, but I ask to KF, and others from USA or Rusia, etc what would you do if you met an atheist -physicist working for the army, so "moral" like my ex-friend in Spain?. creatoblepas

Leave a Reply