Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

I don't think that either wins. First, how has Darwin's theories advnced us today? Albert Einstein is far more important than Darwin. One of Darwin's cousins, Thomas Huxley, dismissed Darwin's Theory as a excuse to have no mores or values. In other words, without God this gives humans a reason to have no rules on behavior. Interestingly, Huxley was agnostic. Nevertheless, Huxley has proven that Darwin really was of no value. I remember reading "Inherit the Wind." All I got out of this was that columnist H.L. Mencken who came to Dayton, Tennessee to cover the Scopes Monkey Trial seemed to get great pleasure in making fun of evengelical Christians. If evolutionists were as open minded as they claim to be they would have no problem with people discussing creationism. I will agree with Dr. Garry about Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was not really interested in freeing slaves. The "Emancipation" Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate States because :Lincoln did not want to offend slaveowners in Union state such as Kentucky or Maryland.

Have to go with Darwin.

Without denigrating the man's achievements, I think that Americans tend to project them on to the rest of the world. Lincoln was an important US president with titanic domestic issues. The rest of the world was resolving the horror/problem of slavery at its own pace. eg Britain abolished slavery decades before the USA. And I've never understood the Emancipation Proclamation. My reading of this is that it (purported) to abolish slavery in the rebelling states, not those in Lincoln's USA. Huh? Tell me if I'm wrong guys, but isn't this like Zimbabwe passing a law that says that it abolishes slavery everywhere on earth except in Zimbabwe? And I'm sure I read somewhere that Lincoln said he didn't care whether slavery was abolished or not, as long as the Union was preserved.

There were more coincidences than those included in the article. Go here

http://www.ellenjackson.net/lincoln_and_darwin_77477.htm

There are even more coincidences. I listed some of them on my web page here:

http://www.ellenjackson.net/lincoln_and_darwin_77477.htm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Darwin is known everywhere in the world, including the US. Lincoln is important only in the US. The question is pretty absurd.