January 27, 2009
Who Was More Important? Lincoln or Darwin?
We’re celebrating an odd double anniversary this year—the 200th anniversaries of the births of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin both on February 12, 2009. Yes, they were born on the same day. And being that history and science are two of our favorite topics at Smithsonian, someone asked: Who was more important, Lincoln or Darwin?
Over one week on the blog, we attempted to answer that question. We’ve included them here so you can follow the argument in one place. Siding with Lincoln are two of the magazine’s senior editors, T.A. Frail and Mark Strauss. And arguing for Darwin will be senior editor and blog overseer Laura Helmuth and myself. Who will win?
Please add your own arguments to the comments. Make a convincing case and I might recruit you into our little office blog war. Read the arguments below, and then vote for who you deem more important.
Who Was More Important?
- Charles Darwin (54%, 110 Votes)
- Abraham Lincoln (46%, 94 Votes)
Total Voters: 203
Loading ...T.A. Frail, argument for Lincoln:
Lincoln outweighing Darwin, in the historical-grativas department? Darwin outstripping Lincoln? It’s like arguing Lennon/McCartney versus Jagger/Richards. But I think the question is inevitable: when you have giants striding the earth at the same time, they’re going to bump into each other, metaphorically or otherwise.
And I vote for: It depends.
Oh, wait—I meant Lincoln. Yes, Darwin came up with the means to explain life on earth. He exemplified the modern scientific modern. He keelhauled humankind’s understanding of itself on a scale not seen since Copernicus. But his work was about life in the abstract—processes and aeons. I prefer Lincoln because his work was about living—about nations and relations. Like Darwin, his work raised the question of who we are, but in the context of how we were going to get along with one another. Darwin explained how life became. Lincoln set a course for what we could become. I’ll go with that..
Laura Helmuth, response for Darwin:
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 Strauss, rebuttal for Lincoln:
All good points, but aren’t we just avoiding the real issue: Who would prevail in a kickboxing match? (Lincoln was a former rail-splitter—and with those long legs of his, I’m betting that Darwin would have gone down in two.)
As for the more mundane question of who was more influential, I think there’s a third variation on the way Laura approaches the debate: How would history have been different if either of these men had never been born? (Otherwise known as the “It’s a Wonderful Life” theory of human history.)
If Darwin had never been born, I genuinely believe it would have been only a matter of time before someone else introduced the theories of natural selection and evolution. Would the case for the “Great Idea” have been as meticulously researched and logically argued as Darwin presented it? Probably not. In that regard, he was truly one of a kind. But, once the idea was out there, it still would have eventually gained widespread acceptance, following years of additional research, arguments and counter-arguments. (Lest we forget, even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was controversial in its day.)
But if Lincoln had never been born, I’m convinced that I would need a passport today to visit Virginia. Such was Lincoln’s political and military genius that I have a difficult time imagining how any other leader in his position could have saved the Union and recreated the nation. (Before the Civil War, people said, “The United States are…” After Lincoln, they said, “The United States is….”)
I don’t know how a Confederate States of America and a United States of America would have gotten along. (I’ll leave such conjecture to the alternate history buffs.) But, I do think that both nations would have been worse off without the other—and one does not have to be U.S.-centric to argue that the United States had a profound and beneficial impact on the 20th century. (Who else would have turned the tide against the Axis Powers? Who else had the resources to contain the Soviet Union?)
And while I do agree that slavery would have eventually collapsed on its own, I also believe that—absent Lincoln’s bold and visionary decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation—it could have been decades before the Confederacy’s “peculiar institution” was finally banished. (And, subsequent advances in civil rights would have likewise been delayed.) For the four million people in bondage, the 13th Amendment couldn’t come soon enough—indeed, it was centuries too late.
Sarah Zielinski, concluding argument for Darwin:
I’m not going to take up Mark’s challenge and attempt to argue that Darwin would win the kickboxing match (Lincoln may have an advantage with his long limbs, but anyone who sailed around the world in the early 1800s couldn’t have been a sissy—that was no pleasure cruise). And though Lincoln made tremendous progress toward equality, some would say that we didn’t reach our destination until last week (and maybe not even then).
Fundamentally, the difference between them is that Lincoln’s greatness is largely confined to the United States. Slavery and bondage, sadly, continue throughout the world. Lincoln’s words and ideas have spread, but other countries may need their own Lincolns to lead them out of the darkness and into the light of freedom.
Darwin, however, changed the way humanity thought about life itself. No longer was the world static, its creatures unchanged since time began. Darwin convinced people—and still makes new converts—that life is and has been evolving. Thousands of years of common knowledge upturned in (nearly) an instant. This was such a paradigm shift that today people still find the idea not only controversial but even dangerous, too dangerous to introduce to innocent, impressionable children.
That leaves the question of whether Darwin was fundamental to the spread of this idea, or would anyone have been able to popularize it. Others had preceded Darwin with ideas similar to natural selection, but they never caught on. And Darwin’s own ideas when first introduced didn’t make much of a splash; that didn’t happen until he published On the Origin of Species.
This is where Darwin’s true greatness shines. He was not only a great scientist but also an amazing science communicator. Origin, The Descent of Man and many of his other writings continue to be read today all over the world. His writing was clear, his tone respectful and friendly. The books are relentlessly logical, rich in description and painstakingly researched. (Kurt Vonnegut, in Galapagos, summed it up nicely, describing Origin as “the most broadly influential scientific volume produced during the entire era of great big brains.”) And in addition to becoming the basis for all of modern biology (would we have progressed as far as we have in science without them?), these works have had profound influences in other areas, such as literature and religion.
26 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m the author of a children’s book about Abraham Lincoln, but I’m still voting for Darwin. Don’t get me wrong–Lincoln was also extremely influential. Lincoln not only saved the Union, but he probably saved democracy as well. When Lincoln was president, the United States was the only democracy in the world. If the Union had failed, other countries would have looked elsewhere for a model on which to base their fledgling governments.
But I’m still voting for Darwin.
First, Darwin not tough enough? I think not. Abe had those long arms and he was buff. But Darwin showed he was no wimp. First of all, he got seasick almost immediately as soon as the Beagle sailed. He stayed that way all the way to the Cape Verde Islands, but finally managed to overcome it. He also put up with Captain FitzRoy who was more than a little eccentric. He rode with the Gauchos in So. American and stuck with his difficult and lonely mission for mearly five years. He was a tough cookie.
Second, it’s true that Darwin’s theory wasn’t totally original, but as others have said–he wrote it up in a form that made it accessible and persuasive. So here are the reasons I think Darwin’s concept of evolution has earned him the blue ribbon:
1. No advance has so upended our world view since the realization that the world was not flat as Darwin’s theory of evolution. Before Darwin, there was no real explanation for the variety and multiplicity of living creatures.
2. Darwin rejected all supernatural phenomena and causation. He continued the revolution begun by Copernicus by demonstrating that humans don’t occupy a central position in the universe.
3. Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology.
4. He proposed and demonstrated (emphasis on the last word) that animal species (and humans) change over time and that all species have a single common origin.
5. He also proposed natural selection, a concept with remarkable ability to explain life’s biological diversity, as the guiding mechanism of evolution.
6. Darwin changed biology into an historical science.
7. Before Darwin, many scientists believed life was static–that humans, frogs, insects, trees were created individually and remained unchanged over time. Darwin showed that nature was dynamic and variable.
8. He developed a new view of humanity by asserting that the common descent of all creatures applied to man as well as to animals. He showed that humans and apes had common ancestry.
9. Darwin’s ideas have profoundly influenced many different fields–such as paleontology, anthropology, microbiology, embryology, botany, medicine, and genetics.
10. Darwinism provided a scientific basis for ethics. Scientists have now demonstrated that selection often favors social cooperation and altruistic behavior.
11. His observations placed humans in the natural world, not above it. The changes in our thinking that have resulted from this one fact cannot be overemphasized.
Ellen Jackson
http://www.ellenjackson.net
[...] you could host a debate on “Who was more important: Darwin or Lincoln?” as the Smithsonian’s Surprising Science has done ( I was certainly surprised at that [...]
Charles Darwin’s intuitive, accessible and yet scientifically profound explanation of the simultaneous diversity and relatedness of all life on Earth emancipated the human mind from the inhibitions and prohibitions of mythologies. At a stroke, Darwin validated the previously unconfirmable but widely held position that nature is all there is, but he also showed us that we can still marvel at nature’s beuaty and know that it is something worth revering for its own sake.
Lincoln, though a great man, reacted to the circumstances that fortune placed before him and used the opportunity to achieve an end which was already the desire of more than half the nation and most of the rest of the civilised world. By contrast, Darwin’s proactive researches into a topic being pondered by almost no-one else on Earth created an entirely new avenue of human thought and innumerable fields of human endeavour.
Many of the changing cultural attitudes that people often associate with Darwin–for example, the inability to reconcile a literal reading of the Bible with a scientific view of nature–were well under way before he wrote. And I have to believe that something like an evolutionary paradigm would have emerged in the following century even if he had not been born. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine the failure of the United States to emerge as a single nation-state and eventual superpower were it not for the leadership of Lincoln during the Civil War. It seems to me that (for worse or better) that would have had consequences for future world history that would still be magnifying at the present moment.
Lincoln strove to preserve the United States as a single entity and as long as that nation is a force in the world, Lincoln’s influence is paramount. Jay Winik’s “April 1865″ gives voice to what might have happened if the Union had been split asunder. There would very probably have been not just two countries but eventually several as the doctrine of secession would have been confirmed. The United States as one nation has immeasurably affected the rest of the world but, someday, its influence will lessen. In time, great nations come and go.
Ultimately, the revolution Darwin’s work set in motion will certainly eclipse Lincoln’s preservation of the Union. Darwin’s insight explaining how species came to be must be considered on a par with Newton’s Laws. It fundamentally alters how we understand our world, its past and its future. The relevance of Darwin’s work will not diminish over time.
I think Lincoln was historically more important. He changed the direction of the momentum of cultural awaremess in the US and consequently the world. This “cultural change” may not have happened without Lincoln. Without him it is possible that we would still have the slave system intact.
He changed the mode of action.
Darwin discovered what was already there. He changed the way we think about things, but he didn’t change things per se. His discoveries enlightened the intellectual world’s view of biological origin but he didn’t change the origin. Eventually someone else would have put two and two together and come up with the same conclusion.
I’d say the jury is still out on the long-term impacts of Darwinism–or should I say certain misunderstandings thereof? If humanity can avoid the temptations of genetic determinism and social Darwinism, then I’d say widespread acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution could do for the planet what Lincoln’s Civil War leadership did for the USA.
Even without Lincoln, the American nation would have, most likely, survived its’ civil war. However, his adroit handling of the presidency, errors withstanding, set the standard for what the American character should-and ultimately will be.
I do not think there should be any doubt that Darwin had the larger impact. Although Lincoln was a definitive person in US history his world impact was not so great. His ideas were great but not original. Slavery was banned in the British Isles two years before he was even born followed by a complete ban throughout the British Empire whilst Lincoln was still in his late twenties. In point of fact Lincoln actually stated that his hero was William Wilberforce, a man who started to petition for the end of slavery way back in the 1700′s. A great man no doubt, but not the first in his thinking or actions.
The impact of Darwin is only just gaining momentum. Where it takes us could be anyones guess.
This should be a no-brainer, Lincoln was an actual politician who made incredible and inspiring contributions to our country and the world. Had Darwin been an actual scientist using rigorous research design instead of an artist who drew pictures of what he saw, he may have never written The Origin of the Species. He would have discovered that the differences in the finches on the different Islands was due to temporary drought conditions. Once the drought was over the bigger, stronger beaks of the drought-inflicted birds returned to being the same as the others. Over 150 years later, scientists still confirm that not a single finch has hatched anything other than more finches. The fossil record shows the same thing. Go figure.
Since brevity it the soul of wit, my vote is for Lincoln. He united a country and saved the Union. Darwin? Theories don’t match facts and acts for importance and relevance. Since we allegedly came from apes, why are there still apes? Or are they future mankind just waiting in the wings to evolve? *L* Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Lincoln.
Darwin was just a theorist.
Darwin.
Lincoln was just a politician.
Lincoln, he left his imprint as a man who influenced (and influences) heroism in others. Darwin only left his imprint with his theories, which like all scientific theories develop and become more perfect over time. Heroism, and moral choices (even if he wasn’t perfect) are far more eternal and unchanging.
You cant compare them they were both great men of history. Apples and Oranges. Scientist and Political figure.
[...] little more than a year ago we asked: Who Was More Important? Abraham Lincoln or Charles Darwin? It seems like an odd question, but since they were both born on the same day—February 12, [...]
i think that sence they where both born on the same day and where really good people and make the world a better place i would have to say that i would vote for both cuz they didnt do know harm and they where both really good people
I think Lincoln and Darwin are Both important becuz i love them and there work i think it’s very important on what they do to me and this country i am from africa but when i moved to the us i found out about lincoln and how he fought for our country but then he got shot in the head it was horrible but then i found out about charles darwin and i found out hes important cause he lived longer.
Darwin. It’s close but no contest.
As pointed out early on, slavery would have ended without Lincoln and evolution “discovered” without Darwin. Neither is important in himself, but both are symbolic of how events turned out.
So, what’s more important, ending slavery or understanding evolution? I don’t know; ask your local slave.
Defend from Darwinians: When Darwin has complete his theory of evolution, it was not completely logical or reasonable. The term Darwinism is used for those who has followed Darwin’s thought, perspective, or way of thinking on the object, not totally believing evolution theory without fault. Therefore, the contemporary Darwinian establishment is more likely closed to philosophically committed to naturalism as a worldview and modus operandi. Darwinian insist that the natural world is all that can be studied provided all the answers to scientific question in terms of naturalism or materialism. All things must be explained. Darwinian naturalism takes two forms: metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism stands for the philosophical claim that only material state exist. So, Darwinism denies all supernatural events, spiritual, or immaterial. In that sense, there is logical contradiction. If Darwinism take the way of science and logic, they should not take the presumption of naturalism. It means that Darwinism also cannot explain their theology as well as unproved thought. Therefore, Darwinian neither be right on philosophical position nor proved in scientific way.
Both were killers. Darwin killed religion and the morality that goes with it. Lincoln killed the republic and nearly a million people.
To choose between a political man who changed society to have a sense of respect to his fellow man or a naturalist who connected us to the animal kingdom with a theory that we modify and adapt to our surroundings over time, is simply impossible.
How can we choose with thoughts of who is the better man, when we can choose to celebrate both men as they well deserve? They are equally important
The case could be made that both men brought about change too quickly. Freeing all American slaves at one time through a terribly violent and costly war, rather than peacefully over a longer time certain had some unintended consequences. And suddenly introducing evolution to the general population the same, including the concept’s misapplication by people such as Marx and Hitler. No way to know for sure of course what would have happened otherwise.
Being as how evolution per Darwin IS still a theory but is taught as so-called fact, I prefer to go with the FACTS of actual history per Abe Lincoln. And besides, Lincoln moved way beyond the ridiculous notion that the negro race was somehow “not human.” That is where the Emancipation Proclamation came to finally be passed into law so that we as a free democracy could grow past superstitions and become more united as Americans and so all of us can enjoy the same equal rights. Not that Darwin was a bad scientist, which he was not…but in this particular instance, Darwin is left in the dust, as it were.
Lincoln, because just think about it. If Lincoln hadn’t been born he couldn’t of stopped America falling apart.And if he didn’t keep America together America couldn’t of done anything for example.Help to win World War 1 & 2 so Hitler would rule the world.Clara Barton couldn’t of made the Red Cross and the American Red Cross has helped all around the world! There is so many things America has done and one last thing…it has made tons and tons of medical,science,and technology break throughs.Just think about it guys Abraham Lincoln is defiantly more important then Darwin.