Get your Charles Darwin Bobblehead now!

| 22 Comments

Get your Charles Darwin Bobblehead now! (In support of SIU’s Darwin Day 2007.)

(Note: In the previous version of this post the Darwin Bobbleheads were about three feet tall as displayed on the monitor and so didn’t even fit on the screen. The poster responsible has been sacked.)

22 Comments

Who wants to take bets on how soon there will be a post up at Uncommon Descent showing a picture of BobbleHead Darwin in a medieval torture pose?

probably pretty soon. It’s not like they’re busy in the lab.

I voted for the young, stylish “Beagle” Darwin, but we got this “John Brown” beaded one instead! Can’t we ever challenge the public’s conventional inages?

Ever notice how Darwin, Marx and Freud all look kinda the same?

Had anyone ever seen more than one of them at the same time?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm . … . …

Kids today only remember the fat, “Vegas” Darwin. But he was quite a sex symbol in his prime.

Bobbleheads: Clear proof that western civilization is doomed.

Why not Home and Away uniforms too?

It’s an entirely accurate model of Darwin, for, unknown to most, he actually died of a broken neck.

After you place your order, pick up an FCD for yourself at no charge: The Friends of Charles Darwin

A strikingly handsome man, although his bobble trait was lost through natural selection.

Darwin was a racist asshole who thought women were intellectually inferior.

Of course, he is always excused as being a “product of his time”.

Well, if he was a product of his time, to what extent was his idea of “survival of the fittest” (a term used by Spencer but ACCEPTED by Darwin in later editions of the Origin) a product of 19th century Victorian racist, sexist elitism?

Maybe that scientific giant Jack Krebs could enlighten us?

Or at least provide an excuse.

Maybe its time for a just so story.

Yes.

Thats it.

Darwin was a racist asshole who thought women were intellectually inferior.

Of course, he is always excused as being a “product of his time”.

Well, if he was a product of his time, to what extent was his idea of “survival of the fittest” (a term used by Spencer but ACCEPTED by Darwin in later editions of the Origin) a product of 19th century Victorian racist, sexist elitism?

Maybe that scientific giant Jack Krebs could enlighten us?

Or at least provide an excuse.

Maybe its time for a just so story.

Yes.

Thats it.

Darwin was a racist asshole who thought women were intellectually inferior.

Sounds like most funides I know. (shrug)

And unlike Darwin, the fundies haven’t been dead for over 100 years.

By the way, JB, how many, uh, scientists did you say were involved in writing the new Kansas science standards . … ?

Who cares? As he pointed out, Jack Krebs who is heavily involved in this is NOT a scientist!

Do I smell a double standard, Lenny?

I’ve seen this post at UD:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poorlaws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.” - http://www.uncommondescent.com/inde[…]rchives/1455

And quite frankly, whether or not Evolution or ID is right, I do not think that the adulation of Darwin has any place in science, nor the progress of humanity.

In fact, going by his beliefs, we should pretty much ban medical research altogether - since most of it just helps “weaklings” survive anyway.

For the sake of humanity, please, let us discard Darwin. I do not want to see humanity return to a time of savages.

So, JB, the answer to my question would be, “None. None of the people who wrote the new Kansas standards were scientists”.

Right?

I do not want to see humanity return to a time of savages.

Too late.

Question for you, my fundie friend —– which religious group in the United States was the single largest supporter of segregation, and the single largest opponent of the civil rights movement in the 1960’s?

Three guesses.

I do not think that the adulation of Darwin has any place in science

Damn, so I have to take down the framed picture in my altar shrine . … ?

Is it OK if I worship Einstein or Newton instead?

And quite frankly, whether or not Evolution or ID is right, I do not think that the adulation of Darwin has any place in science, nor the progress of humanity.

For the sake of humanity, please, let us discard Darwin. I do not want to see humanity return to a time of savages.

I think you meant to post this is the ‘stupidest ID statement of the month’ thread.

I thought we were supposed to have progressed to the point where we can “adulate” someone’s particular achievements without “adulating” the rest of their life.

Darwin was a racist asshole who thought women were intellectually inferior.

Eh.

And the math genius who just won the Field medal for proving the Poincaré conjecture is just plain crazy.

So what?

He was either right or he wasn’t. The evidence says he was.

(I gotta get me one of these bobbleheads!)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 16, 2006 2:29 PM.

Tangled Bank #60 was the previous entry in this blog.

Wherein I argue emotionally about the definition of “planet” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter