January 23, 2009
Lincoln vs. Darwin (Part 2 of 4)
Recently, someone here at Smithsonian asked: Who was more important, Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin? Yesterday, senior editor T.A. Frail took up the fight for Lincoln. Today, our blog overseer, senior editor Laura Helmuth, argues for Darwin.
Please add your own arguments to the comments. Make a convincing case and I might recruit you into our little office blog war.
Laura Helmuth:
Abe Lincoln? Love him. Best president ever. The most inspiring spot in Washington, D.C. is the Lincoln Memorial–stand there in a crowd sometime and read the Second Inaugural etched into the wall and listen to all the sniffles.
There are two ways to approach this debate: either argue about whose accomplishments were more important or argue about how necessary each man was to those accomplishments. To take the last point first, it’s true that the abolition movement was growing stronger and eventually would have prevailed without Lincoln. (I’m not going to wade into the debate about whether the Union would have survived without him.) Likewise, knowledge of the natural world was growing and somebody would have (and Wallace pretty much did) figured out evolution by natural selection if Darwin hadn’t. (But it sure helped that Darwin gathered data meticulously and presented his case so logically. Even though his carefulness was due in part to the fact that he knew his Great Idea had the potential to upset the church, the scientific establishment, and the missus (Emma Darwin was devout).)
I prefer the first line of argument. And how to say this nicely… Lincoln may matter in our measly little lives, but Darwin matters to the entire world and all time. He explained everything that came before him and explains everything that has been learned since. Lincoln worked wonders with his one country, but Darwin allowed us to make sense of all of life on Earth (and presumably any other planet).
Mark, Sarah, and commenters–you guys go ahead and clear this up for us. I’m going to the Galapagos to find some finches.
Who Was More Important?
- Charles Darwin (54%, 110 Votes)
- Abraham Lincoln (46%, 94 Votes)
Total Voters: 203
Loading ...Come back next week to hear from another Lincoln supporter.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] back tomorrow for the first pro-Darwin argument. Posted By: Sarah Zielinski — From the Magazine, History of Science | Link | [...]
Darwin “started the debate” about natural selection. He said clearly that if “only one” of his theories could be scientifically questioned, then all of his theories should be questioned and tested. That is what scientists are suppose to do – question, question, question – how theories can or “if” they answer what is observed in the natural world. What has happened is that scientists and anybody else who questions the acceptance of Darwin’s theories as absolute truth are shunned and criticized. Theories are theories and are suppose to be questioned just as Darwin questioned his own and learned that his theories raised many more hypothesis. He never stopped thinking critically. I am sure he never expected that other scientists would stop thinking critically about the complexities he observed in the natural world. With the advances in technology applied to the development of scientific instruments that continue to reveal stunning revelations, scientists must continue to observe and question and search and test for more information. Keep thinking critically and work diligently to understand the natural world – only the surface, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of published works, has been studied. So very much more to study…and the beat goes on and on….jk
I always wonder about the veracity of these apples-to-oranges debates. What is better? Who is greater? Who was the most influential? Is this passion to label “what is best” a universal human trait or a product of the competitive American temperment?
There really can’t be a “winner” unless you compare like objects or subjects. What is more important, a black hole or a Picasso painting? A trout or a windmill? A telephone or an opal?
Lincoln versus Darwin is hardly a fair or relevant question. Shouldn’t the discussion be Lincoln vs Franklin Roosevelt or Lincoln vs Winston Churchill? Darwin vs Galileo or Darwin vs Watson/Crick?
Well, enough of this. I have to get back to my comparison of raisins and snowshoe crabs.