Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Wow! Sounds like revisionist history to me. Lincoln wasn???t a visionary, tolerant, free-spirited, or rebellious. Lincoln was a typical politician, a hypocrite, an opportunist, a racist.

Lincoln did not believe blacks should be granted the same rights as American citizens or be allowed to participate in American society. He believed that all blacks should be removed from the United States and resettled in some other country. Here are several quotes from Lincoln that confirm his beliefs.

"Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this.... We cannot, then, make them equals.???

"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land . . . ???

"What then? Free them, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people on." "What then? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feeling will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not.???

Lincoln was also a racist. He believed that blacks were inferior to whites.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in the favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary

Finally, Lincoln obviously cared more about the preservation of the Union than he did about rights of enslaved people. In his letter to Horace Greely, Lincoln said ??? . . . My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.???

And of course, BigDumbChimp feels Darwinism is exactly the same as evolution. It is not.
Intelligent Design could have used evolution to reach the point we are now in. Darwinism cannot explain why the human eye works. Where the beings are that were weaker because there eyes were on the bottom of their foot.
And by the way intheimaggrl, it is ok to stand for something important. Get back on the soap box.

Lincoln began a social change which altered the path of slaves and their decendants. Darwin began a scientific change which altered the paradigm of modern biology permanently.

There is no comparison between the two, they are both extremely important in their own right. Who could we not live without? I'd have to suspect that someone else would have come along and done the same job anyway at some point...

Shame on the evolution 'disbelievers', you're following the political-use method of repeat the lie enough and people will believe it- you're missing one vital part of that equation, though, and that is you can't hide the fact that you have no research or evidence to support any claims that the theory of evolution is not valid. Here's a hint: neither your opinion nor any scripture equal such support. There is no 'controversy' in the scientific community surrounding evolution- only the lie you keep repeating that there is. Isn't lying sort of frowned upon?

And lastly, shame on you, Newsweek, for this nonsensical comparison.

In terms of history, both men made significant contributions. Lincoln must be looked upon as national figure in the history of the United States, and not necessarily on a world basis. Darwin's contributions transcend national boundaries and must be looked upon as a more "important" contributor to the human species. A thousand years from now, his writings will probably have a greater impact while Lincoln will only be known as a historical figure in the line of presidents of a country then known as the United States.

Wootweet is correct. Darwinism is a bromide to not willing to piece a logical species line together. Darwinism cannot explain where all the stepping stones are that went into the "fine tuning" of the current product. It bears more assumptions than the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Atheists love it though.

Yes Lincoln may only be known millions of years from now as a president of a country that once existed as the United States but it should not be overlooked that he saved a country that was heading in the wrong direction. Darwin simply reminded man that he is not as important as he thinks. Yes animals change including people as a result of the environment, when it's cold you put on a sweater, when it's time a snake peels off its skin but nothing more than a reaction to the environment; it should not become a "religion." Yes Darwin is influential but that influence is nothing compared to Lincoln's. Lincoln saved a people and a country, Darwin found out the environment changes...what is more important?

Hitler was a Catholic and the Catholic Church was complicit in the Holocaust because they made their membership rolls available to the Nazis which made finding jews by subtraction much easier. What is being called Social Darwinism was not a feature of Darwin's theory and is actually ARTIFICIAL selection rather than the kind Darwin was talking about. Evolution is the opposite of eugenics.

I didn't know Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day! How appropriate, though--the integrity of Darwin matched with 'Honest Ape'.

Ale, you might want to try looking up gravity, as its still not completely understood what the force is. Quantum mechanics are still looking for a supposed "god particle" and Darwin evolution still has to produce transition fossiles of people coming from single celled organisms.
If you think about it, take yourself back to any point in Darwin's evolution timeline and realize that because of the interdependence he found while studying Orchid's, life would not survive. 10 million years something would not have evolved yet so that piece needed to support the rest of the planet would not be there. Life would have died in a few 10's of years let alone make it a 10,000 years holding out for something to evolve.

The Discovery Institute is the preeminent organization re Intelligent Design and all the issues. Please see
http://www.discovery.org/csc/ for tremendous resources, research, white papers, etc. -
everything you ever wanted to know about "ID" and the scientific aguments for ID and the unpopular weaknesess in the theory of Evolution (the debate).. Much can be found at their web site (including the background on the Dover, DE trial, the original issue, and the judges actions).

How could Darwin win hands down? If evolution in the terms he stated were true, then were are all the gradual transitional species today or in the fossil record? I mean, there are birds and lizards today but I don't see anywhere in the fossil record a gradual transition from one to the other and certainly not today. Random mutation cannot account for specific design. Also, many systems need to work sympatically with each other for the larger system to work. How could that happen through random mutations? And by the way, survival of the fittest doesn't fit into the evolutionary equation for the very fact that a mutation has to have that supposedly superior part or parts working properly the first time around, which contradicts the gradual evolution thing.