Darwin Commemoritive in 2009 ???

aficionado

Darwin's 200th Birthday will occur on February 12, 2009.

Think he'll get a coin like old Ben?

JDelage

I'd be hugely surprised - the Christian right would be up in arms!

bhartman35

I can't see why he would. He's not an American, and his theory had nothing to do with America. Given the fact that it would create needless controversy, why bother? That's nothing against Darwin, but it would still leave me asking why.

aficionado

Yea, your right, not an American.

Forget it.

13PacesEast

Darwin Awards - funny

Coxe

<< <i>I'd be hugely surprised - the Christian right would be up in arms! >>



They'd probably organize public melts of Darwin commems in protest, attenuating the pops and drawing attention to the issue as a key coin. (Reminds me of the thing in the Rutles movie where they bought their albums just to burn them making their sales skyrocket.)

relayer

200 years? Dang, that's old

Libertad

Unlikely, but it would be of interest to see what evolves.

I thought maybe Greenspan would appear on the penny after the Lincoln phase? He and money
just seem to go together.

matteproof

200 years of nonsense from darwin and his disciples. That should be the motto on the coin. They might as well strike a coin celebrating PT "there's a sucker born every minute" Barnum (or did they already do that on those funky looking Connecticut commemoratives of 1935?)

Darwin and his neo-darwinist progeny said that in time archeologists would find many fossil examples of "missing links" - fossils showing creatures in the process of evolving. Obviously, as Darwin suspected, there should be more of these fossils than the starting point creature and the final point creature (say, for example, fossils of a series of creatures at varying degrees in the process of evolving from ape to man). Yet, not even ONE single missing link fossil has been discovered after all of these years despite various desperate attempts by the neo-darwinists to find the many that supposedly exist. Where are the many? The darwinists can't even produce a single example. Thats not for lack of trying though.

Piltdown Man was supposed to be one; until it was discovered to be a fake - a crude fake at that (like a heavily cleaned and poorly ATed coin that finds its way into a slab). Piltdown Man was a sensation when it was discovered and was on the front page news of all the scientific journals of that day. However, it turned out that the finders of this so-called missing link fossil had maliciously attached the skull of human being to the jaw of an orangutan making it appear to be both old and a "missing link" (and a crude one too). It was neither old nor a missing link.

Yet, the most respected "scientists" of the day were fooled! Totally duped is more like it. It took years (I think it was 20 years) before the Piltdown Man hoax was finally discovered and exposed (rumor had it that one of the hoaxers confessed on his death bed). If he hadn't, perhaps the "scientists" may have never figured it out on their own. Darwinists believed the Piltdown Man hoax because they wanted to believe it. Religion! With the discovery of the darwinian Piltdown Man hoax, all of the high school science text books had to be re-written.

There have been other such foolishness advanced by self-promoting darwinists throughout the years. Thankfully, the religion of darwinian evolution is gradually being exposed for the Sci-Fi that it really is. By the way, Charles Darwin did not coin the phrase "survival of the fittest." That phrase was provided by a man named "Herbert Spencer," a British so-called "Social Darwinist" sociologist/economist. Social Darwinism attempted to use Darwin's theory of evolution in a "social context." The result was a crude and vulgar elitism that thankfully now only serves as a bad example for the rest of us to see. matteproof

Kaelasdad

that reminds me to always be careful which tree to shake. Back to the subject matter, I agree that a coin with Darwin on it would not fit in and would cause too much of a ruckus.

mozeppa

would this be samantha's husband?

Coxe

<< <i>would this be samantha's husband? >>



Or maybe....

<edited> the Dick Sargent image file disappeared.

kiyote

<< <i>Unlikely, but it would be of interest to see what evolves.
>>



*rimshot!*