Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

 
This week's issue of Newsweek has an article by Malcolm Jones comparing the influence of Charles Darwin, the greatest scientist who ever lived, and an American politician named Abraham Lincoln. Why, you might ask, would anyone make such a comparison? It's because they were both born on February 12th, 1809.

Now, you might think this was a slam-dunk in favor of Darwin but that would be foolish. Remember that this is an American magazine. In America, Lincoln is responsible for abolishing slavery—conveniently ignoring the fact that slavery had already been illegal in the British Empire for almost thirty years. The Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1833 and gave all slaves their freedom.

The answer is ... Lincoln!!! [Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?].
Lincoln and Darwin were both revolutionaries, in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint magnitude of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man? 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. As much of a bombshell as Darwin detonated, and as great as his book on evolution is (E. O. Wilson calls it "the greatest scientific book of all time"), it does no harm to remember that he hurried to publish "The Origin of Species" because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently come up with much the same idea of evolution through natural selection. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin's theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as cogent as Darwin's—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea.

Lincoln, in contrast, is sui generis. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. As James McPherson demonstrates so well in the forthcoming "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief," Lincoln's prosecution of the war was crucial to the North's success—before Grant came to the rescue, Lincoln was his own best general. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was administered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. But here again, what Lincoln said and wrote matters as much as what he did. He framed the conflict in language that united the North—and inspires us still. If anything, with the passage of time, he only looms larger—more impressive, and also more mysterious. Other presidents, even the great ones, submit to analysis. Lincoln forever remains just beyond our grasp—though not for want of trying: it has been estimated that more books have been written about him than any other human being except Jesus.

If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not gainsay his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly—or anguished more over its implications. Like Lincoln, Darwin was brave. He risked his health and his reputation to advance the idea that we are not over nature but a part of it. Lincoln prosecuted a war—and became its ultimate casualty—to ensure that no man should have dominion over another. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was born and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed.

Answer: Lincoln
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.

The comments on RichardDawkins.net are fun to read.


[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

19 comments:

  1. They were both godless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In America, Lincoln is responsible for abolishing slavery—conveniently ignoring the fact that slavery had already been illegal in the British Empire for almost thirty years.

    I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to cut. Does it make Lincoln's role in ending the atrocity of slavery in the United States less important?

    There might very well not be a United States without Lincoln, so it's hard to blame us for having quite a soft spot for him. I'd say the more apt comparison might be Churchill, both for unmatched prose (the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural - particularly when one puts the latter's "with malice toward none" sentiments in the historical context of an ongoing civil war - still make fine reading) and for the central role each played in bringing a nation through an existential crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. jud asks,

    I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to cut. Does it make Lincoln's role in ending the atrocity of slavery in the United States less important?

    Yes. It's not that important when judging a person's impact on world history.

    There might very well not be a United States without Lincoln, so it's hard to blame us for having quite a soft spot for him.

    I'm not blaming you for thinking kindly of Abraham Lincoln. Just don't make the mistake of exaggerating his importance when comparing him to others who made an impact on the entire world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's difficult for me to understand why you give no weight to the contention that we would have a theory of evolution by natural selection with or without Darwin. This piece doesn't attack the theory or the man, it simply (and correctly) posits that the man is less important than the idea, and we would have the idea without him. The ideas Lincoln contributed were few, but his personal significance is enormous. This is true not only of Americans, but also of the whole world, which has been greatly impacted (for good or ill) by the existence of a very powerful nation that, without Lincoln, would not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. think the one that made more noticeable achievemente for people is lincoln.

    Darwin was a scientist, not a humanist.
    Darwin did much to defend the fact of common descent (previously defended by many others even at a popular level such as lamarck) but
    Darwin inspired himself in right-wing economists to understand natural selection as progress by competition.
    This progressist notion of natural selection continues to poison and distort western thinking in biology and all sorts of other areas (specially in anglo-speking countries)

    It seems particularly difficult it will ever be abandoned in these contries, since it is this nothing but this old progressist notion that "explains" how natural selection creates complex adaptations. The nasty truth is that, it doesn't. Not in any observable, demonstrable way.

    That's just the oldest dearest platitude anglos apprently will just hang on to for ever.

    The problem of this well-repeated mantra is accentuated by the presence of a looming creationism, and the presence of many religious scientific academics, specially in anglo countries, that wind up defending ID or creationism: They recycle Paley's argument for complex adaptations, and to answer back, people still use the progressist notion of natural selection. Thus, anglo thinking in many areas is firmly stuck in a XIXth-century understanding of the role of natural selection in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Prof. Moran is, of course, inaccurate his his description of Darwin as the greatest scientist who ever lived. The fact is that Darwin was one of the three most important scientists who ever lived, the other two being Issac Newton and Albert Einstein. Nothing is to be gained by an attempted ranking of these three.

    2. Let us consider what the outcome of the American Civil War would have been if Lincoln had been defeated for reelection in 1864. There is every likelihood that his opponent, General McClellan would have agreed to a compromise peace which would have had the effect of granting the South independence. The result would very likely have been that the remaining Northern States would also have split along economic lines. Thus, instead of a large powerful nation in 1940, the area now encompassed by the USA would have consisted of several smaller and weaker nations. One trembles to think what the result of the 2nd World War would have been in that scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unless one is a firm believer in the "great man" approach to history, it could be suggested that neither played a critical role.

    The currents leading to both the abolition of slavery in the US and the recognition of evolution seem to have already been strong as Lincoln and Darwin came to prominence.

    This is not to diminish the accomplishments of either, but neither of them really originated the elements for which they are (properly) given considerable credit.

    But if it's a question of relative worldwide influence, there's no doubt in my mind that it's Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The question is attempting to compare incommensurables, though I must acknowledge the point that the course of US (and consequent world) history was sensitive to Lincoln the man, while science would have gotten to evolution not too much later, even if the Beagle had sunk with all hands while rounding Cape Horn.

    But ignoring alternate histories in favour of the one we've actually got, I would say that Newton and Darwin between them conceptually gave us the modern world, by showing that it could be understood in its own terms, without recourse to divine action or mystical teleology.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Slavery in ENGLAND was abolished ("the condition of Slavery does not exist under English Law") in 1772, and 4 years alter in Scotland.
    Slave-TRADING was made illegal througout the British Empire in 1807, but it took unti 1833 fro ownership of slaves to be abolished elesewhere in the Empire - essentially in the W. Indes/Caribbean area.
    This was one principal reason for the Boers' "Great Trek" the "british Oppression" they complained of was the insistence that they couldn't keep Kaffirs as slaves any more!

    How narrow are the USA's residents in their views....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Darwin the greatest scientist who ever lived? Goodness! It can't be because of his science, since most of the things he made up have been scientifically discared by darwinists.
    Was Darwin greãter than Einstein? Isaac Newton? Leonardo da Vinci? Alexander Fleming? Maxwell? Faraday? Galileo?

    Larry sais:
    "Yes. It's not that important when judging a person's impact on world history."


    ahh, so Darwin's importance is not because of his science, but bkz of his "impact on world history".

    Well, i agree, Darwin'a myth did have a huge impact on world history. However, so did Hitler and Stalin, but we don't consider them "great politicians" bkz of their "historical importance".

    ReplyDelete
  12. G.Tingey

    "kaffirs"? That is the word islamo-fascists use in reference to those who don't bow down to the stone in Meccah.

    I think you have the wrong word.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mats,

    No, he has exactly the right word. Kaffir is a slur by Afrikanners.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(ethnic_slur)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Believing in important "great men" of history seems as unnecessarily parsimonious in the face of facts as believing in one gene-one trait.

    My *personal* (YMMV) preference of a great scientist OTOH would be Newton, which I believe made the greater leap at the time, and was instrumental in an early establishment of the use of theories. I admire Darwin for using them so ably and massively; however evolution was due to come even if he hadn't.

    But there really isn't a good universal measure of scientists. They are still struggling perfecting todays citation indexes, aren't they?

    @ Mats:

    There is a difference between being important and being great. For example, Einstein was the former, but arguably not the later. His methods of consistency and gedanken experiments have had a problematic influence in the end, witness LQG and pseudoscientific crackpots.

    However, the problematic influence of creationist anti-scientists flow from their old dogmas. No one but an outsider would take the fecundity and development of evolution since Darwin as an example of failure. It would be an abject failure to have a, say, 2000 year old text as the basis for modern education.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Argh! So many sensible people falling into the publicity trap that has been baited with idiocy! These retards smile every time they hear about how mad their article made you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ranking people in terms of who was "greater" is after a point a silly exercise, although we all like to indulge in it. I do agree that there is nothing gained from ranking Darwin above Newton or Einstein. But that's fine; everyone is entitled to his opinion of "greatness". It's also important not to discount the role of society, timing, peers and contingency in someone's greatness. Einstein became great as much because he was in the right place at the right time, as due to his innate intelligence.
    In any case, I don't think anyone would have a problem accepting that Darwin was one of the greatest scientists in history, or at least one of the most important. I personally think it's absurd to compare Darwin and Lincoln.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Matthew,
    Alright. Thanks for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We wouldn't even be having this silly debate if it were not for the coincidence that Darwin and Lincoln have the same official birthdates. We are not even sure of Lincoln's actual birthdate -- he was born on the frontier, where people tended to lose track of dates. The two men had nothing significant in common. One was a scientist and the other was a lawyer and politician. Trying to compare the importance of their influences is like trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges. The whole thing is just an advertising stunt by Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Next comparison will be: "Which colour is more important: Red or Blue?"

    ReplyDelete