News-weak: Darwin vs Lincoln - July 03, 2008
As the celebrations for Darwin’s 200th birthday begin to gear up, Newsweek has decided to make sure the man doesn’t get posthumously too big for his boots.
Emblazoned across its cover this week: Lincoln VS Darwin.
Charles and Abe were both born on the same day, 12 February 1809, and that’s all the peg needed to ask who was more important. Newsweek doesn’t actually out and out declare Lincoln the winner, it does though say:
It's an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, it bears pondering, all the more if you turn the question around and ask, what might have happened if one of these men had not been born? Very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln's favor.
This is argued on the basis of ideas similar to Darwin’s being arrived at by Wallace. Lincoln is “irreplaceable”, Darwin is not.
Unsurprisingly the blog world has had something to say about this...
The eTrilobite.com blog asks the question many are pondering: “What was Newsweek thinking?” It goes on to imagine the article’s creation before pointing out that arguing only Lincoln could have saved the United States is “history at it’s worst (besides outright lies, of course)”.
Over on Laelaps, ecology and evolution student Brian Switek gets in on the party, asking “Who is more important: Me or Michael Bolton?” He also takes issue with the accuracy of Newsweek’s Darwin.
“There is nothing as egregious as saying Darwin converted on his deathbed or anything of that sort but there are many small errors that add up to little more than some rehashed textbook cardboard,” says Switek.
Nate on the slightly expletive-prone Science Gone Mad blog details how he was not allowed to comment on Newsweek’s website. His blocked comment starts thus, “I think that this is simply an asinine comparison.” And ends thus: “Seriously, Newsweek ... epic fail.”
PZ Myers is similarly unimpressed.
Biologist Larry Moran thinks Newsweek is biased towards the American, noting, “In fairness, if you only consider the United States of America, then the answer might be correct. Darwin's ideas do not have much influence there.”
Want more fights? The Skepchic blog has declared Benjamin Franklin better than Tycho Brahe, Marie Curie better than Louis Pasteur and Jane Goodall better than Margaret Mead.
Comments
Wallace had the idea, but maybe not the research, the determination and the gravitas to convince the world. Lincoln, on the other is just a politician. Had he not been there, another one would have been entrusted with the task, and who knows, might have done it. They are both as replaceable, but Abe Lincoln isn't very important outside of the US, so Charlie's got the upper hand.
Posted by: mokawi | July 3, 2008 08:53 PM
In my opinion, Newsweek has decided erroneously as regards an oustanding celebration of 1889. In fact, in that year May 17, died Leopold Auenbrugger, founder of auscultatory percussion, Quantum Biophysical Semeiotics is based on. Thanks to the greatest physician from Graz, nowadays we are able to bedside recognize since birth both a lot of biophysical-semeiotic constitutions and the related inherited real risks. Only one exampel to underscore the importance of Auenbrugger's discovery: while humans, who have born 50, 60, 70 years ago, now die from cancer (lung, pancreas, stomach, breast, a.s.o.), since birth could be NOW easily recognized as involved by Oncological Terrain-dependent Inherited Oncological Real Risk and promptly treated succesfully in the majority of all cases, as I referred in www.nature.com at URLs http://network.nature.com/forums/askthenatureeditor/1846?page=1#reply-5181 ; http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2008/05/our_new_columns_narrowing_the.html#comments , and specially http://blogs.nature.com/nm/spoonful/2008/04/stress_as_a_therapy_1.html#comments .See also my website!
Posted by: Sergio Stagnaro MD | July 3, 2008 08:59 PM
Charles is just incomparable to any one of that period or even later periods for that matter.
A genius like him is a rarest kind.
Lincoln's contributions seems to be limited to America only while Darwin's contributions transgresses all the geographical barriers and aims towards entire humanity.
Posted by: Dr.Arvind Mishra | July 4, 2008 05:08 PM
Darwin changed our form of view all live in the worl; he "only" discovered the mechanism thanks to we are here.
Sorry, Lincoln really is only important there, in the States.
Darwin, after 2 centuries, open our eyes. We'll continue talking about Darwinism in year 3,051
Posted by: Exseminarista ye-ye | July 4, 2008 07:10 PM
Thanks for the link to my site!
Mokawi summed up my view of part of the mess I talked about rather nicely. Lincoln was one politician among many, albiet a great one. To assume that no other politician could have reunited the country is pure conjecture. Hence, the bit you quoted from me about "history at its worst."
It's nice to see the blogosphere weighing in on this.
Posted by: Marek | July 6, 2008 08:26 AM
This is a good Doc
Posted by: Bob | July 10, 2008 07:31 AM
1) I think anyone who thinks that Lincoln's contributions (assuming we are talking about saving the Union and ending slavery) were "seems to be limited to America" hasn't considered what a divided America would mean (for better or worse) for the whole world. It wasn't just about the fate of slavery in one country. No Union, no American intervention in World War I, for example.
2) As for the assertion that "no other politician could have reunited the country is pure conjecture" is true in a weak sense -- surely *somebody* could have done it. But we have a pretty good idea of who the other contenders were historically (such as Seward and Douglas), and they weren't particularly promising candidates for the task. It's like claiming Chamberblain could have taken Churchill's place in the UK during WW II. Possible -- he could have maybe risen to the occasion, but unlikely.
3) The idea that Darwin was irreplaceable, while also speculation, is far less convincing, given the existence of Wallace and the general nature of science. I also am unconvinced that Wallace lacked "the research, the determination and the gravitas to convince the world". He certainly sppoked Lyell enough to alert Darwin that he was about to be scooped!
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | July 11, 2008 12:45 AM