Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Stevaroni on August 23, 2006 10:32 PM
- Anonymous_Coward on August 20, 2006 8:39 AM
- Arden Chatfield on August 19, 2006 4:16 PM
- 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:54 PM
- 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:53 PM
- 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:51 PM
- Wing|esS on August 19, 2006 1:29 PM
- Commentator on August 19, 2006 11:54 AM
- 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 11:16 AM
- 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 11:13 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Site Traffic
Recommend this entry to a friend
Nick Matzke posted Entry 2521 on August 16, 2006 02:29 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2516
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.)
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Comment #120045
Posted by steve s on August 16, 2006 3:21 PM (e)
probably pretty soon. It’s not like they’re busy in the lab.
Comment #120048
Posted by darwinfinch on August 16, 2006 4:23 PM (e)
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?
Comment #120099
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 16, 2006 9:25 PM (e)
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 …. ….
Comment #120171
Posted by fnxtr on August 17, 2006 8:09 AM (e)
Kids today only remember the fat, “Vegas” Darwin. But he was quite a sex symbol in his prime.
Comment #120180
Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on August 17, 2006 8:40 AM (e)
Bobbleheads: Clear proof that western civilization is doomed.
Comment #120193
Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 17, 2006 8:54 AM (e)
It’s an entirely accurate model of Darwin, for, unknown to most, he actually died of a broken neck.
Comment #120226
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on August 17, 2006 12:26 PM (e)
After you place your order, pick up an FCD for yourself at no charge: The Friends of Charles Darwin
Comment #120515
Posted by Cynthia on August 18, 2006 7:00 PM (e)
A strikingly handsome man, although his bobble trait was lost through natural selection.
Comment #120794
Posted by JB on August 19, 2006 9:31 AM (e)
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.
Comment #120795
Posted by JB on August 19, 2006 9:32 AM (e)
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.
Comment #120804
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 11:13 AM (e)
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.
Comment #120805
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 11:16 AM (e)
By the way, JB, how many, uh, scientists did you say were involved in writing the new Kansas science standards …. ?
Comment #120809
Posted by Commentator on August 19, 2006 11:54 AM (e)
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?
Comment #120812
Posted by Wing|esS on August 19, 2006 1:29 PM (e)
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/index.php/archives/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.
Comment #120813
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:51 PM (e)
So, JB, the answer to my question would be, “None. None of the people who wrote the new Kansas standards were scientists”.
Right?
Comment #120814
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:53 PM (e)
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.
Comment #120815
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 19, 2006 1:54 PM (e)
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?
Comment #120823
Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 19, 2006 4:16 PM (e)
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.
Comment #120967
Posted by Anonymous_Coward on August 20, 2006 8:39 AM (e)
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.
Comment #122288
Posted by Stevaroni on August 23, 2006 10:32 PM (e)
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!)
Comment #120043
Posted by Dave Carlson on August 16, 2006 3:19 PM (e)
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?