Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: alatika @ 07/02/2008 9:15:46 AM

    Both were great men who left their foot-prints on the sand of history.Darwin scientific discoveries made us to understand ourselves and the environment. But Lincoln did more than that, he was the progenitor of freedom and how values are uphold. The evil of slavery he strongly opposed made our thinking free.I think Lincoln was better.

  • Posted By: flibye @ 07/02/2008 7:02:29 AM

    I think there has to be a place for Darwin, His works are somewhat altered , but still he has some valid points. We cannot overlook the facts that he has written about to justify our search for God. You can believe that God created and Darwin explained.. Darwin did nothing more than explain what he saw. He did not try to minimize God or his creations. I think people are so insecure about their religion that they are willing to lash out at anything that goea against the grain. Do you belive in Darwinism? do you belie in the Bible, I think both should be taught to help get a better understanding of life and then let the individual decide.God created man, but man created doubt.....Jayson Vance " Muncie Indiana"

  • Posted By: badlogic @ 06/30/2008 10:44:13 PM

    sayitboldly, is all this true because you say so? Is it true because someone else said so? Is Kermit the frog the true God because I say so? You can believe whatever you want but at the end of the day there's evidence, and there's not.

    • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 7:12:06 PM

      its objective not subjective...the bible stands alone.. and so does lincoln and his famous quote

  • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 9:25:04 AM

    Lincold famous quote what we teach children in one generation our leaders in the next generation will be.
    We basically teach kids they are nothing if they don't succeed so now we have a society that cheats to succeed at all costs. We have forget God's influence which basically says you have hit the lottery when you have been born but have a fallen nature and need redemption from me.

  • Posted By: leebe30@yahoo.com @ 06/29/2008 1:21:55 PM

    It's amazing how ignorance abounds when it comes to the theory of evolution. Evolution does not set out to destroy anyone's religion. Nor, does it claim that humans are direct descendants of monkeys. Rather, it claims that we have a common ancestor to monkeys -- just as you and your cousin have a common ancestor - your grandparents. In evolution, it is just on a longer scale -- thousands of years.

    I don't think we should call anything "stupid" until we understand it rather than fear it.

    Theories can be disproven. Aristotle thought the sun circled the earth.

    It is hard comparing two people, especially when they worked in different fields. One comment posted said that Lincoln only changed America. I think over the last century and a half the United States has done a lot to shape the world. Lincoln's effort to shape the country more towards American ideals cannot be dismissed.

    • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 06/29/2008 1:25:04 PM

      evolution is not qualified to be a theory. Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. ...

      • Posted By: leebe30@yahoo.com @ 06/29/2008 1:34:03 PM

        When did Darwin claim that humans came from monkeys? I would like to see that in his words -- although I don't think it exists.

        • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 06/29/2008 2:06:35 PM

          i will give you that if you give up contention that schools do not teach we come from monkeys now ?
          its wishful thinking so we can be irresponsible with our sexual mores which is what Huxley a darwin advocate claimed made it so possible.

          • Posted By: leebe30@yahoo.com @ 06/29/2008 2:28:52 PM

            Please clarify your first sentence. My brain has not "evolved" enough to decipher. I don't claim any expertise in evolution, but I know enough that it has been mischaracterized. Neither do I claim an allegiance to any religion. It bothers me that people shut their mind to something without attempting to understand it, then mischaracterize it to divide us as Americans for political gain.

            There is a myth that Darwin claimed we ascended directly from monkeys, which I don't know to be true. If we (Americans) are to have a reasoned debate on an issue, we should know the basics at the least. Then if evolution is debunked, so be it.

            • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 06/29/2008 7:29:02 PM

              it bothers you when we shut our minds to it well you re not being fair you are guilty of mischaracterizing people who reject evolution. Our generation and the past one has been influenced mostly by the fruit of the piltdown man which was proven as a hoax yet celebrated in public opinion for 45 years up until 1953. In that time...we had a couple of world wars that killed hundreds of millions in the name of evolution...all the agressors were survival of the fittest sympathizers. The 1925 movie Inherit the wind mocks anyone who doesnt believe in evolution and as powerful as hollywood is that is still the dominant thinking despite the disprooving of piltdown man the supposed missing link. If anyone has a shut mind its people who deny Gods existence even darwin himself said the sophistication of the human eye is enough to destroy his "theory".

              • Posted By: leebe30@yahoo.com @ 06/30/2008 11:27:40 AM

                Slow down. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I did not suggest that you were mischaracterizing evolution (I should have qualified my statement). You seem to have done a little homework. I'm talking about the people who have been told that evolution means that humans are direct descendants of monkeys and that Darwin will destroy their hopes and dreams. Then they don't investigate, but continue to spout the same misinformation. If you -- as it appears you have -- investigated the matter and find it fallacious based on reason, not fear, that works for me.

                I personally don't deny the existence, or at least a formerly existent, god. I'm just not buying what organized religion is selling. That has little, if anything, to do with Charles Darwin.

                By the way. My wife teaches biology and digs evolution. I'm a history teacher. I'm a bit partial to Lincoln.

                • Posted By: sayitboldly @ 07/01/2008 8:47:25 AM

                  Well organized religion seems to forget Jesus' role as saviour first then lord and shepard second. Most religions i ve attended forget the joy of salvation. Yet the real church is anyone who believes in Jesus and has experienced the spiritual birth. So people are found in all denoms and places in and out of so called church. Darwin oddly enough his only degree is in theology. Lincolns last words at the play to his wife were something of the effect of "lets go to Jeru..." Jesuralem and bang he was shot dead. Ask your wife is she has more faith to believe in evolution than she needs to believe in God. We call evolutionists priests nowadays because it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God given the poor record of the fossil record which Darwin claimed would bear him out but instead has verified the bible in the last 150 years of the so called Golden Age of Archaeology.

      • Posted By: PReed1962 @ 06/29/2008 4:32:52 PM

        Oh? Then please explain those funny looking crested chinese dogs and/or any other animal selectively bred by man to "evlove"? It is observable-repeatable and irrifuable!

      • Posted By: rjkardo @ 06/29/2008 3:37:20 PM

        Evolution is a fact, in that it is observable and the evidence for it is undeniable except by the blindly ignorant. It is a theory in the same way that we have 'germ theory' and a 'theory of gravity'. In science a theory is an explanation.
        Do a search on 'walking fish' or 'speciation' or 'transitional fossils' and you get plenty of hits, plenty of images and even some video of the above mentioned walking fish.

        It is truly amazing how much ignorance about evolution is displayed on these boards.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 7:55:39 PM

    And, Floridave, I am fascinated by your declaration that the divine power that you have invoked chooses to engage in a sexual act with me. The last time that happened, we got a Messiah. Wonder what I will have?

    • Posted By: rmatossian @ 07/01/2008 1:58:44 AM

      By "screwed," I think Floridave means anally, so don't expect to get anything too Messianic. Maybe a mess, though.

  • Posted By: poggy @ 06/30/2008 11:17:52 AM

    I think Darwin gets too much credit People knew about evolution long before Darwin. He should get credit for formalizing the study of it. Any moron can witness evolution as soon as they walk out their front door in the morning.

    • Posted By: badlogic @ 06/30/2008 10:49:29 PM

      Tell that to the christian extremists.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 8:02:34 PM

    Should be, "might just be".

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 7:58:47 PM

    However, Floridave, you have presumed that I do not believe in a supreme being. Not true. I think that our difference might just that our paths to understanding might not be of the same width.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 7:53:49 PM

    Thank you, Floridave, for the additional words, no more, no less.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 7:31:32 PM

    We would do well not to fear either religion or a theory of evolution. They are both just a body of words, and words will never hurt you. Some like one more than the other, but I can't for the life of me see why there is so much heat in the argument between those who want only one of them to be true. They're just words, and words will never hurt you. You can have them both, so why are you arguing so hard if not out of fear?

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/30/2008 7:23:14 PM

    The past, the Civil War, the issues of the day.

    It is easy to say now that the past was wrong. But then it seemed normal to those who were there. We are doing things today that seem normal to us that will be condemned in the future, but since we will be dead then, we will not be able to come to our own defense. If the past was wrong and if we corrected it, then let's all celebrate that and realize that maybe we don't know as much as we think that we do about what happened so long ago and why those who lived it thought that it was a normal thing to do.
    Look at yourself right now. Try to think of what you are doing that seems normal to you that will be condemned in the future by people who will have an incomplete view of the life that you lead now, and how you at least should hope that they will give you some slack in their ignorance of your total life. Good luck in your thoughts.

  • Posted By: Redboy56 @ 06/29/2008 9:49:26 PM

    The only connecton between the two was their birthday. Otherwise, Darwin was a scientiist; Lincoln was this country's biggest mass muderer

    • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 06/30/2008 6:10:29 PM

      Not to pick a fight but weren't the first shots fired by the South?

  • Posted By: gkopia @ 06/30/2008 2:41:39 PM

    What Lincoln did was of vital importance for the US as a country; Darwin's accomplishment was important for all mankind. As the author points out, slavery was outlawed in England over 93 years before the end of the CIvil War. So Lincoln can only be reasonably credited with bringing an end to slavery in the US. Darwin's contribution was of far greater scope.

    • Posted By: THE RAVEN @ 06/30/2008 5:47:54 PM

      Linclon only signed papers to free the slaves so he could turn the knife in the south. He did not do it because of some moral or ethical core. He was a racist who called black people ni$$ers. He said if he could keep boath slavery and the union together--he would. Slavery would have ended sooner or later with bloody uprisings. American history does not like to mention that these things were happening on a regular basis. White American historians like to portray slaves as docile, content negroes. He knew what was going to happen, lincoln is overrated, and was no different than the racists presidents before him. Darwin's work influenced and changed the world. Lots of things are known, but not many have the intellect to articulate that knowledge. A great man? Read a book about lincoln--a real book.

  • Posted By: ExDemo @ 06/29/2008 8:41:53 PM

    I think Darwin ..He must be . He was funnier. He told better jokes. I mean you can't get a bigger joke that that which is Evolution. I've studied both of these theories hard for 25 years. There is NO doubt what a folly Darwin's theories are. And the 100+ years we've had this around only proves how silly his theories were and are. To be sure he was a thoughtful man and undoubtedly sincere. The problem was he only believed in what he saw. And this is a sure sign of one who is closed into his own world. Too bad he has so many followers. But then again so do most charlatans and con artists. Which in the end is what he was and is. Totally self-serving to his own gain. He was in short a silly silly man, with no real clue.

    • Posted By: ExDemo @ 06/30/2008 7:50:36 AM

      To Florida Doc.... Oh I've grasped the concepts of Evolution in 25 years, it's just that even those theories have not "evolved" into anything substantial. If anything we are learning how far-fetched Darwin's ideas are. The trouble is when one mentions that the evolution theory is weak, everyone jumps on that like you are a religious zealot. Try reading Lee Strobels "The Case for Creation". While as a young man I certainly wanted to believe that Darwin was right, there have been so very many instances where it just showed how wrong he was. And it's actually sad that so many people believe in his theory just becaues you mention the name Charles Darwin. Was he a great thinker? Yeah I guess he probably was. At least he was trying to seek and discover the "how we got here". The trouble is he just limited himself to his own thinking and what he saw. His pride got in the way of his words. He was worred about how others viewed him and what his legacy would be instead of finding out the truth. Or at least admitting it. What a wonderful contribution he could have made if only he had extended his thinking beyond himself. Now he's only a footnote in history about some guy with this "theory of evolution"The fact is we are created. Clearly defined and "set apart" in one way, but "part of" in another. God far exceeds our human understanding and theorizing, and that's a good thing.

      • Posted By: tara52722 @ 06/30/2008 2:40:36 PM

        What instances was he wrong? You mention many times of various instances in which Darwin was wrong, however you never specify any of them. You also suggest that Darwin's theories were influenced by his concern of what society thought of him. I would suggest the exact opposite to be true considering his theories went against what society believed at the time. If that were true, I would expect he would have came up with a theory closer to societal norms. Furthermore, the bible cannot be researched in the way that science can. That is not what the bible is about. Religion is based on faith, not fact. You either believe or you don't. The purpose of religion is to have faith in something that is larger than yourself, not to see and prove it true. You are obviously misinformed on both ends of the spectrum.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/30/2008 8:58:00 AM

      You can't possibly have studied his theories thoroughly and declare them to be a joke. His theories have incredible valid support by 150+ years of research. I find it interesting that people are so quick to discredit evolution, which can be scientifically researched. How do you scientifically research the Bible? You don't, you just have faith. I, for one, believe in both creation and evolution.

      • Posted By: ExDemo @ 06/30/2008 9:50:25 AM

        I'm not so quick to discredit him. It took me 25 years to do that. It's been a long slow process. In the end his theories, just don't make sense. And it is VERY possible to "scientifically" research the bible. You can research the bible without an ounce of faith. One doesn't need to just accept all of the words of scripture on faith. There is mountains of evidence supporting scripture. It's actually harder to disprove it..

    • Posted By: Florida Doc @ 06/30/2008 6:20:58 AM

      So in 25 years you've never managed to grasp the concepts on evolution? Your post is indicitive of the intellectual decline in America. Too often we substitute yelling, opinion, and propaganda for scientific and historical truth. Your post makes accusations but offers no evidence for your assertions. Darwin is a "silly man"? You, sir, should look in the mirror.

  • Posted By: ExDemo @ 06/30/2008 9:44:48 AM

    By the way....you said "Sire, you should look in the mirror"....how do you know I'm a sir? My, my, my ...how you have gone ahead and assumed. I guess you posted an accusation without offering evidence for your assertions....bad Florida Doc...bad.....now you sit in the corner for awhile and come out when you are ready to say you're sorry!

    Really in the end the question about Lincoln vs Darwin is very easy. Lincoln was better...BETTER.... because he had a nicer beard. Notice the no moustache. It has been scientifically proven that more food gets caught in the moustached than in the beard. So if I have to sit across from Darwin or Lincoln, it would have to be Lincoln. He would have been much less messy. Darwin would have had little bits of cheese and stuff stuck in his moustached......Eeeewwwwwweee. . See that's a parallel to how he was. He just had stuff clinging to him without knowing why. People always had to be telling him...."hey Chuck..you wanna wipe the mustard off your face? He didn't even know what was going on with his own beard. People stopped coming around him. This is how he came to write his theory. Small birds would nest in his beard and pick out the crumbs for food. When he would swim scavenger fish would do the same. He misunderstood this and thought these animals had "evolved" by helping him out.

  • Posted By: littleeddie @ 06/29/2008 5:43:20 PM

    No doubt in my mind that Lincoln's legacy and accomplishments fare surpassed Darwins. Lincols was a visionary that kept the US united amidst terrible scrutiny and failures. Darwin's theory is a great piece of scientific work but still is lacking completion. Freiman writes in Current Events, Conservative Outcomes that evolution is only the first piece of our existence. To fully understand human beings it takes the spiritual as well as the physical. I cannot think of any other US President who did more for our country and the world accept Washington. Darwin is not even in there league. Think of what the American way of life has done for billions around the world and I do not know how you could help more people. Even the Chinese communists are following are economic model now that is spreading the good life to the worlds largest country.

    • Posted By: Redboy56 @ 06/29/2008 9:52:20 PM

      Reply to littleeddie- what Lincoln did insured that this country will never again be one.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 06/30/2008 9:01:58 AM

        Ah, one of the die-hard 'confedruts'. You know, most descendents of the Confederates widely accept that the war they started caused needless loss of life. Unfortunately, the Confederates were not wise enough to realize they could not finish what they started when they faced one of the most powerful nations. Their descendents realize that folly. You, however, seem to have your head stuck in the sand (or cotton). Either that, or you're just a blog troll.

  • Posted By: Toni Kamau @ 06/30/2008 5:52:36 AM

    Its a nice read bout two great men. Though the question itself - who is the greater man- rather reminds me on my 11 years old son. The fact that the author finally even comes up with an answer earns him the attribute of naivity.
    By no means we are in a position to measure such complexities.

    But for sure, great ideas are like the truth- they will always prevail. Its rather an American trait to to put the individual. who stands for it in front.

    We should also be aware, that neither the idea of evolution, nor the notion of equality of all men, has yet achieved its final victory in the USA..

  • Posted By: rmatossian @ 06/30/2008 2:25:43 AM

    Good article, well-argued, but the question was ill-conceived. It truly is an apples/oranges thing. Why did Mr. Jones bother to mention astrology near the beginning of the article, even though it has no place in a piece of reality-based work as this? Oh yeah, it must be for the readers who believe in magical sky fairies (a.k.a. god) and deny well-established facts like evolution.

  • Posted By: tbtspark @ 06/29/2008 7:59:09 PM

    Darwin did not "conceived the idea of natural selection". Edward Blyth described it correctly years before.
    This comparison is ironic given the complete title of Darwin's book: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse