Comment: Your perspective is very US-centric. As an Australian, I admire Lincoln, but he has had very little impact on my life. Whereas Darwin shaped the intellectual framework in whcih we all live. He developed his theory to a far greater extent than Wallace. And who is to say that another politican might not have taken up the ant-slavery cause if Lincoln had not been there.
Comment: The author's conclusion that Lincoln was the more important man is based mostly on the idea that Darwin's idea of evolution by natural selection was about to be revealed by at least one other contemporary; A.R. Wallace, whereas Lincoln was simply irreplaceable. While I can accept this argument, perhaps it is of more interest to point out how radically new Darwin's contribution was to this planet, and also how Darwin's contribution (Evolution by Natural Selection) was much better defined than Lincoln's. Darwin's idea was so fantastically radical because it served to forever put man in his place. Although Lincoln's championing of equality is often held up as his lasting legacy it was the preservation of the Union that was his ultimate goal. Certainly, ideas of racial equality had existed long before Lincoln, in other centuries and in other countries. It is also certain that many of his contemporaries had arrived at this conclusion independently, whereas with Darwin there was but one; Wallace, and he a full 20 years after Darwin. Without wishing to diminish Lincoln's legacy I believe his contributions are of more significance domestically, whereas Darwin's idea of evolution by means of natural selection has far more universal implications. Perhaps its universality can be best illustrated by understanding that evolution not only explains species proliferation, but also lends a hand to the emancipation movement by providing evidence for racial equality.
Comment: Excellent article. A note to those postings on here who claim Darwin's contributions were "theoretical". Apparently your estimation of this word is that it is merely an unproven idea, but this cannot be further from the truth. Scientists use the word theory to describe many different kinds of ideas; the gravitational theory for example. I'm sure most people believe gravity exists. Similarly the Theory of Evolution is solidified in virtually-undisputed acceptance amongst the scientific community and enlightened minds the world over. Creationists often attempt to undermine it by saying it is but a theory, and in so doing completely miss the point that like the theory of gravitation this idea is rock solid, metaphorically speaking.
Comment: Neither - No not Darwin and NO not Lincoln. Lincoln was a war monger who murdered his own people. Darwin denies GOD and his theories or still just theories.
Comment: Not everyone believes in God and Gravity is a theory too, do you believe in it? Also Lincoln was fighting for equal rights, you make it sound like he just started a war for no good reason.
Comment: Lincoln's contributions were real, Darwin's were theoretical.
LINCOLN WINS!!!
Comment: Both men were great. Lincoln was very important to the United States. Darwin was very important to humanity. As the author states, comparing greatness in these two men is like comparing apples and oranges. However, if forced to chose, only Americans would elect Lincoln over Darwin. Lincoln was one of the last statesmen in the world to abolish slavery. Darwin was the first proponent of the theory of evolution.
Comment: Both men were obviously gifted and visionaries who were ahead of their time and crippled by it as well. I also agree with the apples and oranges context of Geodesici7. You begin your study of Lincoln and Darwin based on the revelation that they shared the same birthday. Where was the Editor? On Vacation? I just know that if I had tried that in Prep School or University, I would have been sent packing back to my dorm with a big red REWRITE. at the top.
Comment: I couldn't get beyond the title of the article. How stupid. What's the point. They are both extremely important except to Old Confederate sympathizers and literate monkeys that believe they should be higher on the evolutionary ladder than you and I.
Comment: Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
Comment: I suspect that Newsweek will soon feature a cover article that says: Which is better, the apple or the orange?
Then you could devote 3 pages or more to analyzing which is better and then suddenly jump to the conclusions that apples are better.
Comment: Why was this a story in your magazine? Let alone a cover story? How is American ignorance of current events and of the world in general to be broken when you headline absurd articles like this one? It is articles such as this that force me to read The Economist and watch BBC World. Because the American news outlet does not provide me or anyone else with sufficient relevant information.
Comment: Hey hgi11, here is some news you can use: You only have to push the "POST YOUR COMMENT" button once.
Also, Darwin was nothing but a theory stealing self promoter, Lincoln was a greater leader than any of the inbreds the UK has ever produced, and Elvis was greater than the Beatles could ever have hoped to have been.
USA! We aren't perfect, but it sure beats being British.
Comment: Why was this a story in your magazine? Let alone a cover story? How is American ignorance of current events and of the world in general to be broken when you headline absurd articles like this one? It is articles such as this that force me to read The Economist and watch BBC World. Because the American news outlet does not provide me or anyone else with sufficient relevant information.
Comment: Why was this a story in your magazine? Let alone a cover story? How is American ignorance of current events and of the world in general to be broken when you headline absurd articles like this one? It is articles such as this that force me to read The Economist and watch BBC World. Because the American news outlet does not provide me or anyone else with sufficient relevant information.
Comment: Why was this a story in your magazine? Let alone a cover story? How is American ignorance of current events and of the world in general to be broken when you headline absurd articles like this one? It is articles such as this that force me to read The Economist and watch BBC World. Because the American news outlet does not provide me or anyone else with sufficient relevant information.
Comment: Lincoln hands down.
Comment: Darwin is known everywhere in the world, including the US. Lincoln is important only in the US. The question is pretty absurd.
Comment: You would have to be a missing link to believe that Darwin was more important than Lincoln.
Comment: Leaving aside the cheap irony, US citizens should start getting used to the new realities. By 2030 it is likely that China and India will represent 50 % of the world's economy, while the US will be less than 20 %. In fact, China is already financing the war in Irak. In 20 years more will think about making absurd comparisons such as this Lincoln vs. Darwin stuff.
Comment: Perhaps, but we American's will still mostly talk normal whereas the Chinese and Indians will still have those funny accents. AMERICA WINS!
Comment: Almost everybody knows Darwin in the US and in the world. Lincoln is someone for the US people only. The question is absurd.
Victor
Comment: Darwin introduced a THEORY that caused the unobservant to doubt their creator.
To look at a clear picture of creation and somehow believe that by running fast a lizard could cause its scales to turn to feathers.
To believe that ooze could somehow form into a walking, talking being with a complex internal structure and a complex brain.
My ancestors would have had to been a single-celled brainless organisms for me to believe this nonsense.
Darwin himself even admitted to the absurdity of his THEORY when he stated that "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
Lincoln on the other hand believed in his Creator and used the intelligence God gave him to bring together a nation and save our democracy.
Lincoln wins hands down.
Comment: I don't get it. Lincoln held together this great nation through a dark and dangerous period in its history. His goal was not abolition--it was preservation of the Union. Fortunately, abolition was a by-product of his efforts and we are better for having had him as president. Darwin, a naturalist with uncanny insight, developed a Theory that is still controversial and unproved. There are difficult problems for it to address such as the Aborigines and their very existance. He will never be proved and will, therefore, never attain the importance of truly historic persons such as the first Republican President (Abraham Lincoln).
Comment: I just wanted to commend your writer, Malcolm Jones for such eloquent language. I really loved the story. My fave: "At the center of what people then believed, the tent poles of their reality were that God created the world and that man was the Crown of creation." Did you have this tidbit on a scrap of paper in your hat too? Anyhow, after reading the piece, I had to look him up on the Google. Malcolm - you should write a book and be known.
Comment: The very question Newsweek poses on its cover is ludicrous. What is Meacham thinking? Next to Darwin, Lincoln is an ANT. With a single insight, Darwin transformed humanity's conception of itself and revolutionized nearly every intellectual discipline as a result. What did Lincoln do? Saved one particular country from splitting into two? Freed the slaves? Had some political wisdom and courage? Please. Darwin swarfs Lincoln by many orders of magnitude.
Comment: The very question is ludicrous and makes me want to unsubscribe from the magazine for its sheer blindness. Next to Darwin, Lincoln is an ANT. Darwin's idea shook humanity's conception of itself to the core and revolutionized nearly all of the intellectual disciplines. What did Lincoln do? Saved one particular country? Freed the slaves? Showed some wisdom and political courage? Big deal. Give me a break. Darwin is at least as important as Newton.
Comment: Thank you Floridave for your brutal honesty. But I'm not sure if english is your first language or if you can read flowingly, so give it another shot. Poetry doesn't exactly have to rhyme either. Focus less on the sound and more on the content. Either way, thank you for the response.
Comment: I compared these two men in a yet to be published poem over a year ago, so this is the perfect opportunity to present my work. Maybe Newsweek would like to publish it. Here's some lines from my work. Any of you can email me at cameoisaac@hotmail.com if you'd like to see more.
"Even after alleged evidential findings
of his proposed natural selection
Charles remained faithful to his Christian Deity.
However, upon the death of the dearly beloved,
faith is susceptible to change.
There is a possibility,
his was buried with his precious daughter, Annie.
Like the pigeons he interbred,
perhaps Darwin hoped to spawn an advanced race
with his cousin Emma as his mate,
despite his father???s protest.
There are intricacies and complications to inbreeding,
of which may have been conducive to Annie???s death.".
Comment: That really doesn't rhyme so good.
Comment: Wisconsin's unique landmarks once again find themselves in the pages of the latest novel to be presented to readers of history, thrillers and religion in a work that combines all three genres into an adventurous global conspiracy.
The Epoch Point, just released on May 1 and written by Wisconsin native Spencer Zimmerman, is a fictional novel that includes historical facts, certain to intrigue history buffs who are interested in history from the local to the international level, especially as that history thrillingly plays out into what Zimmerman describes as a worldwide "conflict between God and the devil, good and evil."
According to the book's synopsis, the lead character, Robert Davis, is "a young Airman fresh out of Air Force basic training," reflective of Zimmerman's own recent service in the Air Force. "After being held captive in China, (Davis) suddenly finds himself unraveling the most immense conspiracy in history...soon uncovering hidden facts suggesting Russian and Iraqi involvement...discovering the diary of Lee Harvey Oswald...As the clues surface, an evil emerges powerful enough to rewrite the entire history of humanity...before long the conspiracy takes on a supernatural form, marked by [natural disasters] and the wrath of God...Nothing [prepares] (Davis) for the final suspenseful twist the story takes, a da Vinci style revelation that reaffirms his belief in Christ."
Comment: Zimmerman, having lived in several locations around Wisconsin, including near Lake Mills and Watertown, incorporated Wisconsin locations and history into his novel, among them a Viking cathedral on Washington Island and the events surrounding Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Also mentioned is a small village outside of Burlington, Wisconsin, founded by a Mormon religious leader who proclaimed himself king, the only monarchy to ever occur in the forty-eight continental states in American history. Among the other Wisconsin landmarks in The Epoch Point, and most notably, the famous national landmark Aztalan is discussed at length.
Zimmerman's discussion of Aztalan in his book in part follows what Zimmerman calls the "darker" side of Aztalan, including its cannibalism and religious practices, and the instantaneous disappearance of its thriving population. Zimmerman's writing also seeks to make connections between Aztalan's existence with that of the Minoan civilization from Ancient Greece and Zoroastrian culture of the Middle East. All three peoples had similar beliefs, worshipped fire (one of Aztalan's mounds is believed to have been the abode of an "eternal" flame) and practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism.
Zimmerman noted all of these "obscure (historical) connections," which ultimately inspired him to take the connections and formulate them into an adventurous plot. Writing his book took roughly two years.
The book's chapters are titled after the sixty-six books of the Bible, and the plot progresses as Davis reads through each chapter of the Bible, opening the Bible for the first time in chapter one of The Epoch Point. Each chapter follows a "flashback" style in structure, in which the book's characters experience revelations of historical events and experiences from 4000 B.C. to the present, which allow them to observe how those events contributed to the global conspiracy they are presently confronting. Zimmerman states that the book's events begin on New Year's Eve of 2000, and end on Christmas of 2006.
While writing novels remains at present a hobby for Zimmerman, he already has ideas for a second novel that he anticipates will follow a more scientific fiction path. The Epoch Point is currently available through Amazon.com, and Zimmerman is hoping to get copies of the book into some of Lake Mills's downtown novelty shops.
-Emily Ann Paape The Lake Mills Leader
Comment: I looked it up. The answer is Lincoln.
Comment: I was raised by an American mother who breathed reverence for the law to me and my four "prattling" siblings. The United States' founding documents were as important as the teaching of Jesus Christ in our household. This article fails to mention the mind games that have evolved out of Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory that have been used to undermine Lincoln's message. Acceptance of mental ability, economic shell games and the huge profits as signs of being one of mankind's "fittest" has destroyed the ethical fabric of equality and equal opportunity for all that is the very essence of our law. Treat others as you would have them treat you has fallen by the wayside in the pursuit of being one of mankind's fittest. The reality is that Darwin's message has undermined Lincoln's message.
Comment: Fact is my friends is that Benjamin Franklin did not invent the lightning rod. Nor did he discover electricity. He perfected an idea and lived to tell of his findings as oppose to getting electricuted to death like another or others. My point:) Erasmus Darwin, Charles' grandfather and others conceived the idea of natural selection before Charles did. But his grandfather believed God was responsible for it. Without voicing it, Charles was just like his granfather and may have lost his faith because of his daughters death. "May". It would be very immature to believe everything we read wether good or bad.
Darwin wasn't a great student or an incredibly brilliant man. He was a man who found something that fascinated him and then dedicated much of his own time to doing what he loved. Strip him of all the glory and you'd come to realize the artist beneath.
Lincoln was a self-educated lawyer with a moralistic obligation to mankind. Whatever alterior motives he may have had, he provided an unselfish service to people for peace. Ask yourself, what is art? What defines an artist? I'd say someone who indepentdently hones his craft.
No one should be critized for there preference of one these two men. It is a personal choice. However, it would not be a good choice if you don't study these two men in great detail. Again, don't believe everything you read and attempt to be unbiased. FYI: There is more controversy concerning the truthfulness of Darwin's history than there is of Abes. They were two great self-motivated artists.
Comment: This article is LUDICROUS. There is no comparing the two men. Darwin may have generated the most important intellectual idea ever. Lincoln was great, but Darwin dwarfs him by many orders of degree. This is like comparing Newton and a ham sandwich. It's ridiculous.
Comment: It doesn't take 500 words to accurately describe this article. Matt2h did it under 50.
Comment: This article is LUDICROUS. There is no comparing the two men. Darwin may have generated the most important intellectual idea ever. Lincoln was great, but Darwin dwarfs him by many orders of degree. This is like comparing Newton and a ham sandwich. It's ridiculous.
Comment: So many comments, aimed at trying to convince us, of their faith. That evolution, and not an act of creation, caused life to begin and develop. And, that God is no more real than the Easter bunny.
Bottom line is this. Even if evolution is a fact, where did the beginning elements come from? There is ALWAYS a beginning to everything, in the physical world. Something caused that beginning. That something is called the Alpha and the Omega.
It is a fool who declares.....there is no God. The very heavens declare His existence.
NOBAMA!!
Comment: Evolution is just a mechanism for changing life (ie. like antibiotic resistance)....it doesn't say there is no God. BTW where did the beginning elements for god come from?
Comment: Great question...I'm very glad you aked it. As I said...He is the Alpha and the Omega. No beginning and no end. He is trans-dimensional, and is in no way confined to time or space. We are created in his own image, and have been given the right, to one day be as He is. I plan to take him up on that offer.
BTW....when something reaches the end of the universe, what's on the other side.
NOBAMA!!!
Comment: Here in Florida many of us are convinced that the Disney Corporation has something to do with it all.
Comment: jamie28....Darwin spent over 20 years researching and revising his theories and didn't decide to publish until Wallace contacted him to review his paper. I don't know what conspiracy books you have read, but "A Delicate Arrangement" sounds like one. Wallace was an important scientist, but you can't just pull "The Origin of the Species" out of a hat in haste. Both independently arrived at the same conclusions, Wallace just happens to not have been the one chosen for the effigies of the religious right.
Comment: I would not ordinarily respond to what appears to be close-minded comments, but it sounds like you might benefit from reading the book I mentioned, and others might want to know that it's written by a respected author. Also, I don't want to engage in the religious discussion and playground insults as this article is about Lincoln and Darwin, and I would rather see others discuss the scholarship on Lincoln. But everyone's an expert on religion (or so we think), and my generation has been completely indoctrinated in the tenets of the national religion of Evolution, so it's a hot topic! : )
Interesting that you say Darwin didn't decide to publish until contacted by Wallace to review his paper. This is the subject of "A Delicate Arrangement." I'm not saying Darwin didn't study and pursue his theories independently, but to understand the whole story of Darwin and Wallace's relationship, you ought to read the book. To call it conspiracy without having read it says you would rather find an easy escape from dealing with uncomfortable facts. The author of "A Delicate Arrangement" was a foreign correspondent and bureau chief of the United Press, staff writer for NY Times, special correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, and award-winning author. It's certainly not conspiracy unless that's what you call anything you haven't yet learned from your approved circle of influence. Read the book to find out why Wallace was not recognized for his work. He was plagiarized and ignored long before the religious right came into being.
Comment: I give mad props to Wallace...I really do. The reason that Darwin got credit was that he was more respected and well-known at the time and that was important when you are dropping a bombshell like evolution. Wallace knew this and accepted it.....read his autobiography. I really don't care who got the credit since it would have been postulated by someone at some point soon after. (I promise that I don't have a shrine to Darwin in my attic.)
Comment: On a kinda' "silly" note: My father and I share the same birthday. We have often discussed the whole zodiac sign issue and how your supposed to be this and supposed to be that because you are X sign. That stated, I think that both men are trail blazers in their own right. They rocked society and convention. Honestly this argument is still a toss up for me.
Comment: Are any of you out there actually reading the article? I understood it to be a comparison of two men, Lincoln and Darwin, and a question as to which was historically more important. Many of you are commenting on various religious angles having nothing to do with the article. My vote is for Lincoln and not Darwin - not because Darwin did not change society with the theory credited to him, but because he stole the theory from the man who did the work, so the starting point for his theory is an immoral foundation of plagiarism. I know of no proven case against Lincoln like this. The author here of this article indirectly supports the facts of the true story, and I mentioned a couple of those points in my previous post. The fact that the man only made one trip around the world to collect data to support his theory which has knocked the blocks out from under the whole body of knowledge previously collected is implausible. I don't know of any great scientist or discoverer who devoted only a few years to their pursuit. Most have invested their whole lives to just one or maybe a few major accomplishments.
Comment: Find the book, A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, by Arnold C. Brackman, and read the real story. ???With Darwin there is no Eureka moment when he suddenly discovers evolution. Right! Wallace had the Eureka moment, and Darwin took his life???s work and ideas when the man was dying from fever in the jungle. Wonderful - the man who changed our view of reality took one trip around the world to collect data, and then used a theory based on Wallace???s life???s work (the one who has never been recognized) so we can thank a liar and a thief for ???knocking the blocks out from under civilization.???
Comment: ChrisRosendin:
Do you believe in everything the Constitution has to say? If not, do you still believe in the good in America? Do you still believe in the concept of a republican democracy? The Bible was written of its time, and its teachings are the cornerstones of our society and morality. The Bible teaches us far too much to be discounted.
Comment: The Constitution was intended as a living document with rules governing how it could be amended to reflect inevitable changes in society. By and large this has worked very well.
The bible is, purportedly, of divine inspiration. If this were so, wouldn???t it be so much more than it is? Would it not be crystal clear and free of contradiction? Would not its message have been so compelling that all advanced societies of the time would have dropped all other beliefs to embrace it? How could a book, cut, pasted, redacted and assembled by committee over hundreds of years be thought of as divine? If the miraculous is to be believed, when is the last time God saw fit to restore an amputee???s missing arm?
The Bible, the Torah, the Vedas, the Koran and all the rest back to stone carvings on cave walls all hold the same weight. We can be moral without them. We ARE moral without them. 14% (2000) of the population is atheist, agnostic or secular/non-religious. Are we all thieves and murderers? Atheists make up .2% of the prison population (1997). Atheists have the lowest divorce rates (21%).
What positive moral action can a theist take that could not be done by an atheist?
As far as the non sequiturs go, I???m not sure what in any of the posts would lead you question my or anyone???s appreciation of our system of government. It???s as if to say if one favors evolution then one thinks America is bad. What a silly argument!
Comment: The Bible is the infallible Word of God. There are no contradictions.
As for why not everyone would embrace it ??? good question. Many people appear to view themselves as the center of everything. They chose a relativistic view of the world. Your truth vs. my truth. Fact is, truth is truth, even if no one chooses to believe it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. Why do some believe it is OK to drive a pair of scissors into a partially born infants brain to terminate a life? Why do people believe that they should create life only to snuff it out in the name of science? One day all will believe. Unfortunately, for many it will be too late.
Comment: The ???s seem to be a product of cutting and pasting. Sorry about that. I should have saved as text.
Comment: Well said.
Comment: Regarding the original discussion, if Darwin had never been born; there were plenty of other theorists right behind him that would have written the same book. Perhaps less eloquently, but same facts, different day.
Had Lincoln not been born it's possible the civil war would have happened later, but it would have happened as soon as a serious unionist /abolotionist took charge. Without Lincoln's artful and creative leadership, and his ability to re-create his thinking to defer to the needs of the union (a rarity among politicians of the day)... our union may not have survived intact. And without a UNITED States for the last 150 years, who knows where the world would be today.
So, in conclusion: Lincoln wins the "Most Important" award.
Comment: Wallace was right on his heels.
Comment: Wallace wasn't on Darwin's heels, Wallace's work was plagiated by Darwin. I have no respect, from a academic perspective, of Darwin or his ideas. He is an academic fraud.
Comment: Back up and try again. Darwin sat on his theory for almost 10 years because he was concerned about how it would be received. He knew it would cause an uproar. Darwin published when he finally did to "beat" Wallace, who was working on a parallel track. Darwin didn't "plagiate" from Wallace. Also, there's his efforts collecting specimens from around the world that led to his insight about selection. Darwin was no fraud.
Comment: Read Arnold C. Brackman's "A Delicate Arrangement"
Comment: Read "The Origin of the Species"
Comment: Try Genesis. Lots shorter and much more believable.. The truth usually is though.
NOBAMA!!!
Comment: I especially like the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis....believing in both of those simultaneously is a wonderful challenge.
Comment: It is the same story. Keep reading. The story gets better and better. I especially like the history of the Jews and their half-brothers, the mohammeds. Best part is where Ishmael gets cast from the camp.
NOBAMA!!!
Comment: What about when Noah gets drunk...that was great. And the part...you know the one...with the guy that had that hair....that was great!
Comment: You left off a really good one. The story of the future King of Israel's youth. Where he kills the Goliath, with a rock and sling shot. The Jews actually named a city after him. Jerusalem. The City of David.
Your right. Lots of very good stories. They all have very deep and inspiring messages. Their lives eventually led to the culmination of the 2nd Adam. Jesus. Now talk about a really influential person. It's probably easy when your God incarnate, though. Now THAT'S A GOOD STORY.
NOBAMA!!!
Comment: Here are the FACTS:
(1). If either evolution or God were incontrovertible fact, there would not be any discussion here at all.
(2). There is nothing wrong with being in either camp. It's a personal choice. Both are matters of faith.
That's all you really need to know. For some, believing in God makes them feel secure. For others, believing we came from monkeys makes them feel enlightened. It's possible to be comfortable with both, but that seems to be a rarity. It's an all or nothing debate with little room for gray... merely black or white.
Evolution is science theory, not fact. Ever notice that nobody ever argues whether or not gravity exists? It's undeniable. We see it every time we drop something. Same reason God gets debated.... people have trouble grasping what they can't see. Matters of faith always attract detraction.
Now that I've straightened out this mess, I am going to go to another blog and tell people who they should vote for. Glad to help.
Comment: I completely disagree with your statement that believing in God vs. evolution is an all-or-nothing, black-or-white decision. To see ANY debate as black and white, one must be ignorant and have no original thought. I can all but guarantee that neither Darwin nor Lincoln saw God (or any coin-flip ideals for that matter) as black and white. One can believe in God and evolution without betraying their own beliefs.
Comment: Well you did a fairly poor job with the evolution part. One, anyone arguing we came from monkeys is not in possession of a good understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory says than man and ape share a common ancestor. So get that part straight if you are going to attempt to be critical of the ToE. If you don't it comes off like you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Secondly, and I've had to repeat this many times, please educate yourself on the strength of the term Theory in science. It is not what you think. Thirdly, Gravity is still a theory so you kinda shot yourself in the foot there. So is germ theory and a host of other scientific ideas that we use and rely on every day. But I can let that slide because you obviously don't the weight a theory carries in science compared to the layman's usage of it, which you seem to be relying on. And the whole faith thing with science is pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh. If you want to use that term fine. How do you feel about the fact that germs cause sickness?
Comment: Sheesh... BigDumbChimp, try to think outside the box a little. We all know that Darwin didn't dwell on monkeys, its purely a metaphor for evolution. I thought most people would get that. As far as gravity goes-- it is easy to believe because we see it happen every time we drop something or hurl our laptops at the wall. Again, metaphor. Perhaps I should have used the flat earth/round earth example to keep it simpler. Sorry I confused you. I was shooting for a theory that most people believed and took for granted. Finally, germ theory would have been a more confusing example because we can only see germs through a microscope.... a slightly more difficult metaphor to grasp because of the shortage of homes with microscopes. Even the atomic theory is only a theory. It is hard to imagine it being replaced with an entirely new table of elements, but surely an open and highly scientific mind such as yours cannot discount the possibility of such an event in the future.
Next time I will try to keep my examples so simple even a BigDumbChimp will understand.
Oh, I almost forgot... I am okay with germ theory. Pretty easy to understand. Why can't you grasp someone embracing both evolution and God at the same time?
Comment: BigDumbChimp, that came across a lot more smarmy and wise ass than I meant for it too. Try to ignore my attitude when you read the above. Thanks. I really do respect your position. Damn my sarcasm.
Comment: I, too, have faith that germs cause disease though this faith is based on the paltry "germ theory". It's amazing, is it not, how many people think the word theory is pejorative to Evolution when, in fact, it's the highest praise. A hypothesis doesn't get elevated to the status of a theory until it has withstood massive and ongoing challenges. Our understanding of gravity is based on a theory that has held in the same way.
Comment: And I have to say, Floridave, since you claim to be a scientist, it's remarkable that you don't know what a theory is. I understand that most people don't, since the term is bandied about in the main stream media so poorly, but you? As a scientist, you really ought to be careful with the term since it's misuse perpetuates ignorance. I'm NOT a scientist and have little back ground but I think those who are would agree with this missive.
Comment: Comment: I'm NOT a scientist, I was speaking as one. I can also speak as a religious person even though I am not one of those either. I am sharing opinion, not applying for a job. I never believe anything in here when someone claims to be something. I respect opinions, but there are way too many PHD's in here to really have trust in what people claim to be.
Comment: Speaking as a scientist, i can assure you that there are NO credidble scientists of any merit that do not believe in evolution. We only question the mechanisms of evolution. Put simply, evolution is an unquestioned fact in the same way gravity is a fact, even if we still don't know the details of how each works. As far as god goes . . . I would like to believe, but am not sure that Odin really exists.
Comment: Also speaking as a scientist, I can tell you that evolution is way too shaky to be taken completely seriously by anyone. It's just the current baseline until something better comes along. It will most assuredly change, unlike the basis of most religions which have not "evolved" all that much for several centuries. To suggest that evolution theory won't ever change is to turn your back on the reason science exists.
Comment: No one is suggesting that the ToE won't change when new information is brought forth that passes muster with the process. That's how science works. ID or Creationism are not that. They've brought nothing to the table. And speaking on your religion thing, religion does not change in the face of new evidence. It ignores anything that goes against its baseline. That is not a good thing.
Comment: Religion does not HAVE to change. That's the point. It's all tied to faith. Like the bond between mother and child, that sort of thing. It's a constant. I am not a person of deep faith, but I certainly understand and respect those that are. There is no reason to mock, fear, or discount matters of faith that you don't understand. Like the Muslim propensity to blow yourself up... I don't get that, but not respecting it can be a really bad thing. And I particularly admire those that can balance faith and science. It's not impossible, but it does require a metaphorical approach to the scriptures. Believe me, not every Sunday school approves.
Comment: I would like to encourage every one to regard each other with more respect when responding to a comment. We are here to share our thoughts, not to slay a person we have not met. NO ONE knows all the answers and each one of us are confident that what we believe is the absolute truth. We would learn a lot more about each other, our separate perspectives and about ourselves if we were not so offensive and/or defensive. Even if you don't believe in God, who can you deny that His teachings would lead to a peaceful existence if every one were to abide by His commandments and love one another. Every one here seems so intelligent in their arguments, but not always equally humble. The manner in which you convey a message will dictate how well your audience will receive it.
I already commented earlier about my opinion and was rebutted by someone. I think he was rather kind in his tone. I wish I could speak to each one of you in person and tell you in detail why I believe so fervently in what I do. I certainly do believe in God. I do believe I was fearfully and wonderfully created with an absolute purpose in my existence. I also believe that every one of you have been as well. I even believe there was much purpose in the life of Charles Darwin even though I disagree with his theory.
I definitely encourage you to look into a video tour called the Truth Project. It breaks down much of the inherent difficulties of Darwin's theory. Dr. Tackett has a grasp on language that I do not possess and therefore do not dare to tutor anyone of his teachings. Lesson 5 and Lesson 10 touch on this topic. Before you slaughter me for what I've said, please consider enlightening yourself with this DVD series first.
Comment: I do deny that BIBLICAL teachings lead to peace. God, as something that only exists in the minds of believers doesn't teach anything. The bible says unruly children can be killed. The bible says it's moral to execute people for being homosexual. The bible says god told the Israelites to massacre their enemies, men, children and animals and that they could rape the "pure" women. You can't have some of the teachings and ignore the ones you think are barbaric.
Comment: I'm NOT a scientist, I was speaking as one. I can also speak as a religious person even though I am not one of those either. I am sharing opinion, not applying for a job. I never believe anything in here when someone claims to be something. I respect opinions, but there are way too many PHD's in here to really have trust in what people claim to be.
Comment: This Darwin-Lincoln common birthday stuff is old news, going all the way back to 1894! Check out what Ingersoll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
had to say:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/on_abraham_lincoln.html
On the 12th of February, 1809, two babes were born -- one in
the woods of Kentucky, amid the hardships and poverty of pioneers;
one in England, surrounded by wealth and culture. One was educated
in the University of Nature, the other at Cambridge.
One associated his name with the enfranchisement of labor,
with the emancipation of millions, with the salvation of the
Republic. He is known to us as Abraham Lincoln.
The other broke the chains of superstition and filled the
world with intellectual light, and he is known as Charles Darwin.
Nothing is grander than to break chains from the bodies of men
-- nothing nobler than to destroy the phantoms of the soul.
Because of these two men the nineteenth century is
illustrious.
Comment: How can we compare two men who offered such different contributions in different fields. As we know: One was a politican and the other a scientist. Science and Politics butt heads constantly. Indeed most things in life intersect but wow this is a stretch. They both contributed wonderfully DIFFERENT things to the world.
Comment: Just 150 years have passed since Darwin went public with the first outline of the evolution of life on earth.
That it took humanity such a long time to get a rough picture of life's history is amazing, especially due to the fact, that there was nothing existing before beyond some static religious myths.
When reading the comments below it becomes obvious that people still refuse to accept our past.
Why do people close their eyes?
Is it the simple fact that nature and with it the inevitable consequence of our death is a part of human life?
Comment: It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.
First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.
Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.
Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.
I don't care if you are a disappointed Hillary supporter or an undecided Independent or a life-long Republican or are pro-Obama. ANYONE, regardless of stripe, needs to vote against a candidate who had declared his intention of appointing partisan judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial. That is the basis of our legal system. Without that, you might as well live in a dictatorship, without recourse to law.
Comment: What is the big deal with Roe Vs. Wade anyway? Don't you trust the states to handle what is basically a health care issue?
Comment: Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
Comment: Jeremiah 25:33 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
jeremiah 25 33
And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.
Comment: Sounds like a nice guy! I think I'll worship Him for His glory. Baal, right? I want to make sure I get His name right on the t-shirt. Or was it Alah? Anubis? Amon Ra? Apollo? Flying Spaghetti Monster (praise be upon His noodley appendages) Krishna? Oh LORD, please tell me how to spell your currently fashionable name so I don't get smited! OR... maybe all of these are imaginary.
Comment: Red fish, blue fish. One fish, two fish.
One Fish, Two fish. Dr. Seuss. 1960.
Comment: All genes are immutable. There is no mutation. Genes were all made unchangeable in the same seven days that earth was made. Nothing is infinite. Everything is static. Words were only invented to print the bible. LIfe is just a theory. Sin is here only to find out who goes to hell. Virginity was created only to let god have a son. It has no other sensible use. Darwin was born only to test our faith. There is only one path to heaven. And there is not an S.O.B. on earth who will ever qualify to walk it. If you wish to indulge with a virgin, then you need to go to the muslim church and commit suicide against the enemy of the day, after which you can have 92 virgins until you are too exhausted to enjoy any more. There are other religions, too, that you can join if you want any other peculiar things out of life and death. Science is just something to make you miserable in school until you are old enough to quit and go to work flipping hamburgers. There are plenty of charlatans waiting to help you with all of these theories as soon as you make enough money flipping hamburgers to pay them to tell you whatever crackpot idea makes them the most money for the least effort while shouting at you and threatening you with eternal damnation. If you are too lazy to go their place to hear these things, then you can tune them in on your TV and send them the money through the internet. Good luck in your worships. Don't worry about either evolution or creationism. They are just feed another silly argument for idle people to make. If you just keep your eyes and ears open and live a sensible life, all these things will become clear to you in time. Good luck.
Comment: Great comments in the ironic vein, OlderWiser. Alas, all too true. Double that for the moron who posted just below me, pretending to be the Reverened of the burger flippers.
Comment: Ah yes the drive by commenter who just agrees. So do you find all of science to be "something to make you miserable in school"?
Comment: Well that sure was a whole lot of nothing. Thanks! I'll go back to flipping burgers now... /sigh
Comment: Ok, I'm out, I have dinner to attend to and I need to put the pile of textbooks back where they go now.
Comment: A quick story to make a point...
A preacher is the last remaining person left in his curch as the flood water rises. He is forced to climb up on the roof. A rescue boat comes 3 times for him. Everytime he tells them "I love God and God loves me. I am a soilder for God and he would never let anything bad happen to me". Get gets washed away and drowns. The preacher gets to heaven and he ask God "why? Why, would you let me die!?" God's response is I sent the boat 3 times.
All bio-medical and genitic research being done in this country and around the world, like it or not, it is all based on evolution. Evolution is the corner stone of modern bilology - Bush's top science adviser said this along with ID is not science.. The United States is also going to need a new group of children that have a strong foundation in science to continue with this research that we all benifit from. If we want to stop pandemics and develop ways to feed all the mouths on this planet we need science.
We can't pray for new cures and advancement in medical treatments and then want to eliminate the very thing that all of this research is based on. Unless you're more interested in keeping your old 2000 year old text book valid to prompt your flavor of God and willing to forgo the next generation and potential life saving technologies. Seem kind of selfish to me and I can't imagine how God would approve or bless it?
Just be careful for what you want. I don't believe for a second any creationist wants to teach ID besides evolution. They want to completely elimintate evolution from the science rooms and any other science that may have any kind of way of attacking your bible and your religion. They want to teach the childern how to think and what to think based on their way of seeing the will of God. .
Back to my story, I hope your childern or your grand childern never find themself one day crying and asking God why did you take may beautiful baby? And his answer could be well I gave you the blue print and manual for how I created life on Earth - Evolution but you rejected my gift.
BTW - There is no such thing as micro-evolution. You believe in evolution or you don't. There is no special case or card that can be played called micro-evolution. You can't apply it when you want to and not when it isn't convient. Science doesn't understand everything about evolution but you don't need every peice of a jig-saw puzzle sometimes to see how the picture fits together. But you can't look at just one piece of a jig-saw puzzle and claim to konw what the picture is.
Comment: One more thing to the macro/micro point. Only creationists use the term Macro Evolution which they trot out to illustrate how they've never seen a lizard turn into a bird. It's a classic straw man, attacking a position that biologists don't actually take.
Comment: Very nice post but if I may correct one point, lay person though I am. I believe you may have intended to say that there is no such thing as MACRO evolution rather than micro. As I understand it, biologists don't really talk about macro/micro but if you HAVE to say something, you say micro whereas macro is the accumulation of small (micro) evolutionary steps. I hope I stated that right.
Comment: I enjoyed the article, but I have no idea why it was written. Just because they were born on the same day is no reason to compare the two. It's as it the writer was told to come up with something by x/x deadline and this is the result. Or maybe a story to catch the publics eye to reach the ultimate goal; sell advertisements...
Malcolm Jones (the writer); I'd love to read a detailed story about Darwin. The Beagle, his father, wife, schooling, time on the islands. Maybe more of his personality, childhood, passions. I think Darwin???s work is amazing and I'd be glued to the story. And no, I do not wish to read an entire book on the man, I simply don't have the time or patience, but a 3-5 page story would be welcomed.
Comment: Excellent article Mr. Malcolm Jones. The comparison was refreshing and has great merit. Having been born on the same day myself, I grew up often reflecting on the genius ideals of these men. Both were remarkable visionaries. Both had significant impact and remain influential.
Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin? My answer: (????)
Comment: For the record, what's the definitive evolutionary biology textbook we need to read to be brought out of the bronze age (as one poster put it)? Maybe a scientist that knows could post a link to a syllabus too. I would be happy to read more.
Comment: Copying from below again:
As for some lite reading I have a couple of suggestions:
Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher, a little old but a good summary of most creationist arguments in their various forms and an explantion of their inaccuracies.
Evolutionary Biology by Futuyma is a good general text on modern evolutionary theory and reserach.
Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li has a whole section on the evolution of the globin family of molecules and the molecular evidence that supports it.
Comment: Is it possible to actually have a book bore you to death? Would these books do the job? I need some birthday gift ideas for a few people that I can't stand... these books sound perfect.
Comment: Yep. Those are much better and more in depth technically. The Zimmer book is a good overview. So you have some good choices now!
Comment: Thanks, to you both. I will put these on my "to read" list. It's been fun today...
Comment: Cheers! Have a great night!
<
