Yikes. As everyone seems to have noticed, their cover story this week is Lincoln vs. Darwin, an absurd premise driven by the coincidence of their common birthday, which stoops to quoting their horoscope at us.
As soon as you do start comparing this odd couple, you discover there is more to this birthday coincidence than the same astrological chart (as Aquarians, they should both be stubborn, visionary, tolerant, free-spirited, rebellious, genial but remote and detached--hmmm, so far so good).
And of course, this being our brain-dead media, it can't actually discuss them as independent people who made their own unique contributions to the world, it has to turn it into a horse race and ask, "Who was more important?" (I won't give the answer away, but here's a hint: which one was American?) It's a glib and superficial bit of tripe.
The only good part is that it does define what a scientist is. This will be handy when people ask what I do for a living.
And Darwin, at least at the outset, was hardly even a scientist in the sense that we understand the term--a highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists.
You can read more about this major media event at the Sandwalk and RichardDawkins.net. Sad to say, I don't seem to share a birthday with any major historical figures, precluding any hypothetical rivalries. Although I was born on the same day as a major earthquake in the Aleutian Islands, if that means anything.
- Log in to post comments
Hah. I share a birthday with Chuck Norris. And Sharon Stone. So much for astrology...
It's good to see NewsWeek featuring two godless* types on their cover.
(*Although Lincoln converted to Christianity shortly after his death.)
BOOOOO newsweek... for the second time in a month (they recently published an article about psychics) they have shown themselves to have gleefully tossed off the shackles of a "news publication" and become a pandering, fluff producing, lowest common denominator targeted publication of codswallop.
BOOOOOO...
March 9, 1957
Pity, one day later and you'd be sharing a birthday with a very religious middle eastern 'celebrity'.
He's even more famous than you, too!
Eeeek! Signs and portents!
*runs away giggling*
It's obvious that they are missing the most important aspect of this comparison.
IT'S A BEARD OFF!!!!!!11
Ken Ham could learn a lot from these two and their beards.
I share a birthday with Susan B. Anthony -- the twit!
(*Although Lincoln converted to Christianity shortly after his death.)
There are no atheists in six-foot holes.
I hope they do Newton vs. Gandhi next.
Was Newsweek ever serious or relevant? This is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. Am I too young to remember?
They were both abolitionists, anyhow.
Other than that, well, what an absurd comparison. Let's compare penguins and platypuses next, and decide which is really the best bird (since platypuses have those bills, and share some genes with birds (we do too, but no one notes that fact)).
At least they look like they're portraying Darwin quite favorably, as a free thinker and a scientist who can communicate well. Part of the latter is the obvious fact that at the start of a science like evolution there are few specialized terms--little jargon. There's still a good point to be made regarding the accessibility and common sense presentation of Darwin's work. Someone without religious blinders can understand much of the best evidence for evolution just by reading Origin.
The fact, however, is that although Lincoln did much good and should be remembered for a long time, it is Darwin who will be remembered for much longer. Lincoln's contributions were important, but are limited in time and place. Darwin's contributions are, like Shakespeare's, for the ages.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
You should try my birthday: January 30.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_30
The day Ghandi was assasinated, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, Bloody Sunday in Ireland, the deadliest marine disaster in history, the Beatles' last concert, Charles I was beheaded.
Man...I must be the antichrist or something :)
Oh right..and it's the same birthday as Dick Cheney. I'm DEFINITELY the antichrist then!
I read this article last night and I assumed the author would not declare a winner, but give both men due credit for their accomplishments. However, as Colbert would say.."Go USA! USA! USA! Suck it, Britain! Woooooo!"
Of course, I really believe it was silly of them to turn it into a "horcerace".
Newton was born on Dec. 25th. I want to see a Newton vs. baby Jebus Newsweek story.
I should at this point plug the women scientists' birthday calendar!
Google Calendar and iCal
Zuska's commenter Penny contributed most of the birthdays.
I share mine with Irene Joliot-Curie, which rocks.
How can you judge whether Darwin or Lincoln was more important? They have nothing in common! One was a politician, one was a scientist - there's completely different standards for judgement. It's apples and oranges. A better debate would be something like Darwin vs. Einstein - whose ideas were more influential? Or Lincoln vs. FDR - who was the better president? But that's probably to much to expect from Newsweek...
Darwin or Lincoln? Who's the best? There's only one way to decide this:
FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
I actually read the whole article. Decently factual, reasonably informative, and pleasant to read... if you're in the eight grade.
Newton may have been born on Dec. 25, but it's doubtful that Jesus was.
The Newsweek thing was interesting to glance at while checking out at the supermarket. I wouldn't dream of paying for it, though.
I proudly share my birthday with Arthur C. Clarke... and Beethoven... *beams*
I share my birthday with Marie Curie.
This reminds me of that ancient SNL parody game-show, "Quien es mas Macho?"
What a terrible definition! I talked to someone who wasn't a scientist a mere two weeks ago.
Hm,I just looked this up,and Im sharing a birthday with Ayaan Hirsi Ali,Chris Noth and Whoopi Goldberg.Right.Well.Hm.
Astrology hey...
What an utterly stupid thing to be throwing Lincoln and Darwin together like that,and its Newsweek,not the Sydney Morning Herald LOL
I share my birthday with a personal hero - Thomas Jefferson; April 13. As we are both Aries, we feel (or felt) that astrology is a bunch of bullshit and that the writer of this insipid article should be fired and have his pencil (quill pen) broken.
This is an inane comparison. But really, when you think about it, what else does the American media really 'have' to do? They've already made it blatantly obvious that they are nearly incapable of presenting important information on pressing matters (hence the abundance of celebrity related dreck in the news feeds of most major publications). How else could they possibly spend their time while maintaining this dazzling standard except by trotting out historical figures for a little post hoc head-to-head because they share the same birthday? The horoscope excerpt was a nice flourish too.
Just the other day, Steve Novella was saying the following:
I guess she may have been judging by the publication she knew best.
Egad! My birthday is tomarrow! I share it with Queen Sonja of Norway. :)
Oh great idea Al - lets have a FOOOD FIGHT!!!!!!!!!
Raw egg straight at Matt Penfold, for continuing to be a sulking sissy for the 2nd day.
*SPLAT*
Coming up next, Springfield's fattest man meets Springfield's oldest man!
Opposites attract?
Trying to post the link on "Senate examines TV evangelists"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7484662.stm
I hope it works this time.
PZ, but you share a birthday with Yuri Gagarin, Bobby Fischer, Irene Papas, Raul Julia, Amerigo Vespucci, Modest Mussorgsky, and many others.
My birthday is December 25th. That's right, same day as Anwar Sadat and Dido!
Admit it, though: who wouldn't like to see these two square off on Celebrity Death Match?
Katie @11,
The day Ghandi was assasinated, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, Bloody Sunday in Ireland, the deadliest marine disaster in history, the Beatles' last concert, Charles I was beheaded [Emph. added]
So why are you complaining? It's not like nothing good ever happened on your birthday!
Yeah?? Well I get to share a birthday with Marlon Brando, Eddie Murphy, Helmut Kohl, and none other than Sebastian Bach.
Ahhh, Skid Row and the good ole days of Hair Metal!!
Oh, and Jane Goodall too. That one is kinda cool.
Next week on Newsweek,
Cap'n Crunch vs. Captain Kirk
As soon as you do start comparing this odd couple, you discover there is more just than the ranking coincidence (impulsive, rebellious, both did green alien women, and both taste deliciously sweet)
As for who was more important I will refer to a great man, whose name I stole for my pseudonym, said of Maxwell's equations,
The American Civil War will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event
I think the very same can be said of the theory of natural selection.
I share mine with Mick Jagger. So I automatically out-birthday-cool all of you.
:p
I share the same birthday as Miles Davis and Beverly Sills. I consider this to be just as significant as Darwin and Lincoln being born on the same day.
This Darwin vs Lincoln debate is an old fundy debate. Lincoln, being the fine "christian" freed the american slave. Darwin, being the "anti-christ" brought racism and knocked the big sky daddy from the center of existence.
Look up the letters to the editor section of the Chicago Sun-Times from April 15, 2002 as an example of this kind of inanity.
With that, I would hope they change the name to Newsweak.
Chimpy, you are wrong. I have Miles Davis.
'raspberry'
Sulking sissy ? Moi ?
Did I miss something ? I may have done. I dropped a door on my foot yesterday and self-medicated with vodka and ibubrufen.
With that, I would hope they change the name to Newsweak.
Posted by: Alex
Wrong. Make it Newsmax.
Jimi Hendrix shares his brthday with me.
Hahaha - the jokes some of you guys tell... this thread DELIVERS!!!
damn it
If I may be so bold, I do like the cover.
@ Death Worm, #15
That article has already been written. It's actually quite nice.
I suppose Darwin and Lincoln do have one thing in common in terms of religion. Darwin removed God from Biology. Lincoln removed mention of God from the Constitution - it being present in the constitution of the Confederation.
Isn't it strange that most of the effort to 'reinstate' God seems to originate from southern States that were in the Confederation during the civil war.
I share a Birthday with Walt Disney. And aside form him founding a multi-billion dollar entertainment company and being a bit of an ass, we are pretty much twins.
You can really tell that the people who wrote and edited this article were English majors who barely passed their intro science courses. You'd expect such a hostile definition of scientist from a fundie source, but to see it in Newsweek *shakes fist*.
Why do some people think that all characteristics of a person can fit on a one-dimensional scale? Do their opinions of their friends consist merely of a percentage score?
An earthquake in the Aleutians on the day of your birth, huh? Clearly, Poseidon was pleased! (Oh maybe C'thulhu, it was the Pacific afterall...)
What's that you say, PZ? I can't understand a single word of it, not being a scientist and all.
I'm lucky enough to share the same birthday as Angelina Jolie, as well as large pouty goldfish lips.
You are so in the doo-do Matt. No spanking for you and your bar tab has been cut to 12 ducats, etc... go back over to the Molly thread to view the abuse heaped on you. The leg humping dogs were just about to be loosed in your direction. Good thing you showed up. Sulk over?
It's not the first time I see someone saying Darwin wasn't a real scientist. I remember a web TV programme where the invited expert on evolution (who happened to be a creationist) made this point too. He said something like: "Actually, Darwin wasn't a real scientist, but a naturalist..." As far as I understand, it's right to call Darwin was naturalist, but not to use the word to trivialize Darwin's method of the quality of his work. Wasn't 'naturalist' just the name given to those who studied nature in the past, before the science got so complicated that there was a need for more titles?
According to the BBC, I'm exactly as old as the Internet! Of course, a lot of people who were born in the late 60's are exactly the age of the Internet according to some measure.
I share my birthday with the both of them (and my eldest nephew), I so rule the school!* :)
As I grew up in Illinois, the "Land of Lincoln" I got my birthday off from school from kindergarten through High School, further evidence of ruling!
I revere Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln as great men, but their greatness is in different circumstances. Both men have left us a legacy of historical importance, the great Darwin for his work on evolution, and the great Lincoln for his fortitude in keeping our great country united during it's most trying times. I want both men with me if I had the choice; greatness is always better when one compliments the other. And Lincoln is great in my estimation because, though he may have alluded to religious expressions, we know that he was really not religious as we interpret the case. If I had to list people whom I truly admire and wish to communicate with on many matters, then these two men are among the ten.
Patricia,
I only ever sulk for five minutes, me!
I must protest at the cutting of the bar tab: I can drink that much in a hour! No complaints about the spanking though :)
Here's a quote from Lincoln
"While I was at the hotel today, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife."
On a Sept 15, 1958 Presidential Debate.
Here's a bit of Darwin's View from Descent of Man.
"...yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters."
Sure, one could argue that Darwin also had the belief in ethnic superiority, as all intellectuals did in his time, but he uses his experience and observations to point out that perhaps those beliefs are overstated. He may not have interracial marriage in mind when he speaks of common origins, but that was the Zeitgeist of the time. Yet, I hate to make another comparison to this stupid newscreap article, but who really has the moral superiority here? Definitely not Lincoln.
Patricia: No spanking, just twirling.
PZ,
I'm not a scientist, so your post was all gibberish to me.
However, I read the Newsweek article. Among the many flaws of contemporary journalism that it exhibited was a too-strong focus on personalities. But that's "just a theory" of mine.
I share a birthday (Feb. 17th) with Michael Jordan, Paris Hilton, Michael Bay (of Armageddon fame), and Lou Diamond Phillips. Geronimo apparently died on my birthday, as did the Roman Emperor Jovian. Also, the following interesting things have happened on my birthday:
-In 1753, Feb. 17th was followed by March 1st when Sweden switch from the Jovian to Gregorian calendar (Jovian stuff is popular on Feb 17)
-In 1864, The H. L. Hunley became the first submarine to engage and sink a warship.
-In 1933, The Blaine Act ends Prohibition in the United States. Yay!
-Also 1933, and I'm sure completely unrelated... Newsweek is published for the first time!
I share Sept. 21 with H. G. Wells, Gustav Holst, of "The Planets" fame, and 3 Nobel prize winners. :D
If this had any kind of significance whatsoever, I guess I would be a good writer/scientist AND a creative writer. My constant thesis procrastination might beg to differ...
That is precisely what a news publication is.
Oh all right, you get a reprieve. But don't ask me to go all yellow belly christian & forgive you.
No worries Holbach, the Sluts deal out the spankings. ;)
I gotta twirl off & buy more food for the hounds.
I share birthdays with Richard Dawkins.
We're both atheists.
We both don't believe in astrology or horoscopes.
He wrote a book called "The God Delusion". I READ a book called "The God Delusion".
Coincidences? I DON'T THINK SOOOO....
It's the comments section of the newsweek site that is really the most horrifying. The level of abject ignorance is really just too much for me sometimes. And ignorance that is applauded at that.
American is done.
"On their birth date, Thomas Jefferson had three weeks left in his second term as president."
Dude. They were old.
Oh sweet, my birthday is the day that Einsten's paper introducing "E=mc^2" was published. Kick ass.
It's also the one day that Lancaster, Pennsylvania was the U.S. capital. Huh.
I quit reading Newsweak fifteen years ago. I have not regretted that decision for even a single moment.
Newton was born the year Galileo died. Maybe they'll suggest Newton was Galileo's reincarnation. Or something.
Well I have the same birthday as Eli Whitney (inventor of the Cotton Gin) and Jim Morrison (a.k.a. The Lizard King). Obviously, those two have a great deal in common with each other, and me ...
so what's a journalist then, someone who toys with words so much they can be a dick without even trying?
I resent that. I can totally talk to people outside my field. Although, I may not count, since I haven't completed my degree yet. One day I will be so specialized that I can only talk to myself!
If you look at the comments on the Newsweek site you'll see people trashing NW because of how "evil" Darwin was. One bright chap actually raised the 2nd law of thermo dynamics...ugh.
Eep! I share a birthday with Pat Buchanan! So does that balance out with k.d. lang? ;-)
||laughs||
CVA
PZ: You share a birthday with my brother.
Now, I'm not going to read this thing but I will note that it hardly mentions anything related to creationism. So, having Darwin mentioned in the main media in a story that was not derived form a DI press release is good.
You also share the same birthday as Johannes, Prince of Waldburg in Wolfegg and Waldsee.
Oh sweet! I was born the day Paul Castellano was shot by John Gotti. I always knew I was a born mafioso.
Ben Stein has already had a conversation with Darwin's statue. (Remember that PR photo?) Let him talk to Lincoln's statue and tell us what he got out of that. Maybe he could make another fine documentary: "Seceded: How Big North suppresses southern states and how Lincolnism actually leads to slavery (not to mention Naziism)"
On my birthday, the French poet Guillaume Apollinaire was arrested and put in jail on suspicion of stealing the Mona Lisa from the Louvre museum.
#11: You're not the Antichrist unless Penis Cheney says that he was born on YOUR birthday.
Although Darwin wasn't exactly a short man (6 feet or so), he's got to be standing on a stool in that photograph!
:)
All I get is some Icelandic football player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ei%C3%B0ur_Gu%C3%B0johnsen
Oh well, it could have been more absurd and inane. At least they didn't have a swimsuit competition.
D'oh. And I thought I'd heard the dumbest thing of the month already...
I gotta say though, that definition of "scientist" works very well for absolutely anything. Check it out:
"A Latin speaker is someone whose vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists people who speak Latin."
Don't even get me started on German. We take words and just stick them together and make new perfectly good words! And you can only speak it to Germans! Or, well, people who bothered to learn German...
... in the same way in which you can learn scientific vocabulary. Where's the problem?
Seriously, what does it take exactly to be a journalist these days? Is there any possible way to not qualify for this job?
I share a birthday with George Orwell. Cue the Twilight Zone music.
I think I win the crappy birthday contest. I share mine (a week from today!) with: Fred Savage, Courtney Love, O.J. Simpson, and the worst train wreck in U.S. history (July 9, 1918).
#59:
You need to take that fragment in the context of the time and place. (A Senate campaign speech, against a spectacularly race-baiting Democrat, delivered in one of the most Southern-leaning parts of a state that officially barred blacks from entering.)
Sure, Lincoln thought blacks were probably inferior to whites. He was a man of his time and place. (Not everyone can transcend it, especially not politicians who need to be elected.) He also broke the chains of slavery that bound them and put rifles in their hands so they could shoot their former masters. A saint? No, but the good surely outweighs the bad.
I've got the dubious honour of sharing my birthday with Ben Stein...
I'm going to make a slight defense of the comparison, even though I agreed that it is "absurd". It is, but seriously, it's not as bad as it's being portrayed by many.
The fact is that two people from the same period are being discussed in a manner that might grab the attention of many readers. Sure, their work doesn't have a lot to do with each other, yet for people who don't know a lot about history it might be a way of putting them both into context, which is often something missed in discussions of such figures. You "compare" the two not because they're much alike, but because they're really quite different--yet with certain connections existing between the two, due to their times and the issues of their times.
That they pick Lincoln over Darwin, when the two aren't comparable to any great degree, is their biggest mistake. Simply picking two people sharing a time period to illuminate their times and their places within the time is not a wholly unreasonable scheme.
I'm not saying it's a successful treatment, understand. I'm just stating that it's not necessarily a bad idea from start to finish. They're trying to take a somewhat different tack than most have already encountered, and it might work out. They do not have to stick to a history-book formula, they have to try to pique the interest of readers. Conceivably they have managed to do so, if the response on the blogosphere is any indication.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
On my birthday: Sonja Henie, Betty Ford, and Robin Wright Penn.
Weirdly, I think I'm not that far from being the most famous man born on my birthday. Just have to beat out Schecky Green, Kofi Annan, and Gary Carter.
Making up for an unimpressive cast of characters: it's the traditional date of Buddha's birthday in some countries, and it's the day Hank Aaron hit his 715th.
Oh, and the Pope's funeral meant Charles and Camilla didn't get married on my birthday but the day after.
I wanna ride on the bandwagon!!
Ahem. Many historic events have occured on my date of birth (sept. 13). 1906 - First fixed-wing aircraft flight in Europe. 1857 - Milton S. Hershey, American confectioner was birthed.
I have flown on said sort of aircraft and I have probably eaten chocolate while doing so, though I can't swear it was a Hershey.
Also, I do occasionally get a friday the 13th B-day party. And I abhor astrology stuff.
"Who was more important?"
This question is so fucking stupid, I can't believe it's so fucking stupid.
That's it. I'll never buy Newsweek anymore.
I share a birthday with David Lee Roth and my sister shares a birthday with Sammy Hagar.
I share a birthday with Billy the Kid, Boris Karloff, Harpo Marx and Dr Who (1st broadcast thereof).
Beat that.
(Although if anyone shares a birthday with Alyson Hannigan, I'll concede defeat.)
Wow, are we all familiar with the film, "Idiocracy?" We are getting closer again!
I'm waiting for the Shakespeare-Dante cage match.
Sez William, "You think you know what Hell is like?"
It's not that far out to compare the two. This time last year I gave a school assembly on their joint birthday, with a freeing the slaves/freeing the mind theme.
And shared birthdays? Hell, Charles Mingus, Jack Nicholson, Yehudi Menuhin, Robert Oppenheimer, Nicola Sacco, Lenin and Kerensky, Kant, Nabokov...
The big problem with all forms of media these days is that they haven't dealt with the explosion of bandwidth.
The Internet and, to a lesser extent, the number of cable/satellite TV channel alternatives has had a polarizing effect on society. There are so many options available for who you connect with and how you obtain information, that it's now possible for just about anyone to hook up with a group of people who think very much the same way that you do. (This blog is certainly an example of that.) So, everyone is gravitating into their respective groups of like-mindedness, with very little to pull anyone back towards "the center" on any given topic/idea.
What is happening in big media is simply a reflection of that evolution. They're all slanting coverage to pander to specific groups and/or dumbing things down to pander to as many customers as they can to stay alive.
I've been pretty concerned about this trend and what it means for the future. With nothing out there to act as a moderating force, the media/Internet are breeding extremists at a much higher rate than in the past. Is that going to hit some critical mass that ends up in something a lot more violent than just blogging flame wars?
and Internet web sites, blogs, and media downloads provides so many different options for viewing.
I was born on Ronald Reagan's birthday... and even though I'm still basically a nobody, I'm sure I've done more good for this world than he did.
Hm... is that mean?
Sorry about the extraneous text at the end of my last post...
"And Darwin, at least at the outset, was hardly even a scientist in the sense that we understand the term--a highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists."
Wow, I'm going to go vomit now. I'm so mad I can't even begin to make a sensible response...
Obviously Lincoln was more important. If Darwin hadn't been around, then Wallace would have provided the theory of evolution. *ducks*
Catta @86,
Don't even get me started on German.... you can only speak it to Germans! Or, well, people who bothered to learn German...
Not true, actually. I am not German and have never bothered to learn the language, but I do just fine over here. All you have to do is speak in a guttural stage-German accent, move all the verbs to the end of the sentence and say "Achtung!" a lot. Works a treat -- die Einheimischen merken nicht einmal, dass ich Ausländer bin. (Achtung!)
I dunno. The Darwin town car was a flop, but on the other hand, you can't spell Darwin without W-I-N.
I share a Birthday with Walt Disney. And aside form him founding a multi-billion dollar entertainment company and being a bit of an ass, we are pretty much twins.
Walt smoked like a chimney, dipped his donuts in scotch for breakfast, and wrote to the State Department warning that an employee active in unionizing his studio should not be allowed to enlist because he was obviously a communist.
That must be you to a "T" eh?
Strewth, just looked at the comments section.
Next time someone asks why PZ is so confrontational and unwilling to play nice, just repeatedly hit them over the head with a rolled up copy of Newsweek, explaining 'That's why, that's why'.
Where's MTV's Celebrity Death Match when you really need it...?
Oh and Pharyngulites: Christopher Hitchens was recently waterboarded. For real. Go here.
That Newsweek nonsense is the print version of internet forum trolling.
I think such a periodical knows people don't take it very seriously, and as such takes a bit of a Jerry Springer / folding metal chair approach to getting readership and/or attention.
Not a surprise. It's an excellent example of how real news simply does not reach the average human. In order to make JQP pay attention to Darwin, we have to have a celebrity deathmatch episode with him in it.
but maybe, just maybe, later, JQP will look Darwin up on wikipedia later and actually learn something.
Just sent my letter to the editor in outrage over the characterization of scientists as people with arcane language who are unable to communicate with the outside world. The whole article was bizarre, but that part seemed easiest to write about.
I have to agree with Rey Fox (@105). Darwin did a wonderful thing, but if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. Ditto any scientist and their discoveries (with the possible exception of Newton :-). What a scientist does through hard work and novel thinking is to discover patterns in the nature of the world. That doesn't detract from the impact of their contributions. But those patterns remain there to be found, even if someone else discovers them later.
On the other hand, what a politician does is to make choices. (Woe to "The Decider") The fact that a politician makes a particular choice at a particular place at a particular time can have a profound impact on history that simply cannot be replicated, because the circumstances will never be replicated.
Would evolution still be true if Darwin had not worked his butt off and had some incredible insights? Absolutely. Would the US be whole and the South be "free" today if Lincoln had died as a young boy? Maybe, maybe not.
Carlie, what a great idea! I'll do the same.
Dear Editor,
Let theta be the size of scientist A's vocabulary, discounting lexemes, and epsilon the proportion of said vocabulary understood by the educated layman B....
This is great! Next week there will be a Newsweek cover story comparing Cosimo de Medici and Anne Frank, along with me and George H.W. Bush. And people say that the press in the US has been supine since 9/11--it is the hard-hitting, insightful stories like this (not harmed by having an American winner!) that prove otherwise.
Re the earlier posts: I think Batman and Ben Franklin would be unbeatable: The Dark Knight and Dr. Lightning!
This article illustrates perfectly why I stopped reading Newsweek and Time somewhere more than half a century ago. Both either write about nonsense with no serious premise, like this article, or they make stuff up. Back in the late 60's and early 70's we lived in Manhattan (NY that is) and one of our neighbors was a senior writer or editor for Time. She loved the job because it paid very well, but hated it because the publishers were intent on every story being complete, even when Time lacked the facts. So they were under orders to invent them when necessary, although plausibility was desired. I stopped reading Time then, but continued to scan Newsweek, none of whose writers I knew, until I caught them at the same game. I'm sure both still do it, just like Fox does now, although Fox does it for ideological reasons, not just to present a "complete," if invented, story.
Miss Prism - :)
I had to work very, very hard not to start my letter with "I'll use small words so you can understand what I'm trying to tell you".
This is what I sent:
In the July 7 article "Who was more important, Lincoln or Darwin?", author Malcom Jones describes a scientist as "a highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists." Really? As a scientist, I find it fairly easy to talk to to other people about science, especially as it's my job as an educator. In this country most scientists pull double duty with research and teaching, and the majority of our job time is spent making science accessible to people other than scientists. I log close to 500 hours a year in direct contact with students, explaining science in terms they can understand, many more hours in preparation to do so, and spend only a very, very small fraction of that discussing my research with other scientists using jargon-laden professional language. Mr. Jones perpetuates the image of scientists as socially inept individuals who are unable to communicate with the outside world, which is offensive to all of us who spend a large part of our careers laboring to make science understandable to all.
Zeus, Odin, Osiris and FSM...The stupid in the Newsweek comments...it burns. The worst part is that it would take so long and be so akin to beating one's head against a brick wall that most people don't bother to try and argue with the delusional halfwits, with the end result that they think they're in the majority. Naturally, this in their mind conflates with automatic rightness...and they go on their merry ways, still more secure in their absolutely correct knowledge of everything. Oh, how I loathe the smug bastards.
And Newsweek. It's the print version of the evening news and Nancy Grace - sensationalist crap designed to make the target audience (generally suburban white people) feel either more paranoid and threatened by the world outside of their own specific social strata, as well as anyone 'other' than them, or make them feel more smug and secure in their own identities, without challenging them to think about reality. Actually, that probably applies to the Bible, religion with a very few exceptions, FOX News, and the Republican Party, too. Just substitute "suburban white people" for "us" in every case - funny how that works.
Call me a geek, but the cover looks like a cross between Marvel Civil War and The Five Fists of Science.
Sure the article was pretty stupid, but then so is basically everything else that can be found in the Newsweek/USA Today/Reader's Digest family of publications. The definition of a "scientist" made me throw up a little bit in my mouth, but the idea that scientific knowledge exists outside of and beyond the individuals that do the discovering is a valid point (see #105 and #113). We don't accept the validity of evolution because Darwin wrote a brilliant book (though he certainly did do that), but because of all the other researchers before and since Darwin who have confirmed and expanded his ideas. Considering the source, it actually was a fairly decent and readable article. Contemplating the contributions of two extraordinary human beings who happen to share a birthday is certainly not a waste of ink.
11-24 = Bat Masterson, Zachary Taylor, Wm. Buckley Jr., Dale Carnegie, Scott Joplin, and me. Ours is a cozy little astrological house and I'm honored to be their roomy.
I recall that around the turn of the century/millennium
one of the cable channels compiled a "100 Most Influential People of the Past Millennium" list based, I believe, on viewer input. Certainly a contest to beat all contests. The gold was taken by Martin Luther while Gutenberg came in second for the silver. At the time there was a rumor that the Gutenberg camp suspected Luther of doping, but it was never investigated. (IMHO the Luther doping charge was valid ... one need look no further than the Missouri Synod for proof).
You didn't think that newsweek was actually a serious publication, did you?
If you want news, try US News and World Report or The Economist.
Newsweek is fluff, just like Time or People magazine.
-jcr
It was a little refreshing reading an article in such a low-IQ publication that at least didn't try to "teach the controversy" by soliciting a quotation from Ken Ham or the like to "balance" the article. Am I right in feeling like there is less and less treatment of evolution vs. creationism as a legitimately open question in the mainstream media? Could the Dover trial have done for public/MSM opinion of ID what "An Inconvenient Truth" did for public/MSM opinion of anthropogenic global warming?
"If I may be so bold, I do like the cover."
Boldness is forbidden.
I kinda like the cover too, when I decide to see them not as rivals, but as partners in ass-kicking. The Defenders of Rationality.
Hey, I was born on the same day as Madonna. Not sure what that signifies...
Ayn Rand is a fellow Aquarian...oh noes!
(I'm a Socialist and Aquarian and I despise her)
Now, let's get serious. Who would win in a fistfight between Lincoln and Darwin? That is an important question.
Let's see, shared birthdays... Tobey Maguire (same year, even) - Yay! Ted Haggard - Eek! Djibouti - no, really... the Do Not Call Registry - extra yay! ATM machines - not sure about that one.
Oh, and since we're discussing Lincoln, deaths that happened on my birthday include the Potemkin uprising, and the assassinations of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. h/t Wikipedia
Ah well, at least you have Vanity Fair.
No, seriously. Hitchens just let himself be waterboarded to see if it's torture or not.
read his piece here.
My birthday is precisely six months before/after Xmas. I guess that makes me the anti-Christ...
Sad to say, I don't seem to share a birthday with any major historical figures, precluding any hypothetical rivalries.
Vyacheslav Molotov, who lent his name to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Molotov cocktail, was born on March 9 1890.
//JJ
I only share my birthday with fictional characters.
I think its obvious that the Tsunami was caused by Cthulhu returning to his watery throne after witnessing his son's entrance into the world. You're obviously the offspring of the ancient one. Earthquake-smerthquake.
Seriously, I think a Darwin/Dembski would have been a better read:
"while it's true that Dembski has more letters in his name, Darwin did produce one of the most important insights into our nature in all of human history. Dembski, on the other hand, is just a blithering idiot"
I like how the article lists things they have in common and puts "and each of them lost children to early death" in there. Yeah. It's called living in the 1800s!
And then there's the astrological chart:
"as Aquarians, they should both be stubborn, visionary, tolerant, free-spirited..."
Compare that to:
The author should look up the definition of Stubborn.
The level of discourse in this thread has ruint me for all others, I tell you! I didn't get past this gem in that comment thread:
"If evolution is the way we got here why have we stopped evolving? Why are there still monkeys? Why do we still have an appendix? If we can have it surgically removed with no adverse affect why hasn't it evolved out of us?"
Teh stupid, it burns!
My birthday was August 6, the anniversary of the day "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima.
I have not yet made such a significant mark on the world.
I have gone onto the Newsweek comments page to look at what people have posted. As a famous writer said apropos the death of Little Nell: "You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh." It starts off well with one poster suggesting that Darwin was a nut out to destroy God, and then goes downhill rapidly. And the spelling--it hurts to even give a passing glance to a lot of the comments.
I am a great admirer of Lincoln, a man who certainly had none of the material advantages that Darwin enjoyed, but freeing the slaves did not have an impact on the rest of the world since the US was the only advanced nation that still had them in 1861 (I am not including Belgian colonies here). More important is the fact that he held the country together so that it could ultimately become the global superpower, which certainly does have an impact on the world.
Darwin set minds free and let us truly see our place in the world; he ranks up there with Newton and Einstein.
Lincoln and Darwin were great men but the comparison is otherwise just stupid.
The level of discourse in this thread has ruint me for all others, I tell you! I didn't get past this gem in that comment thread:
"If evolution is the way we got here why have we stopped evolving? Why are there still monkeys? Why do we still have an appendix? If we can have it surgically removed with no adverse affect why hasn't it evolved out of us?"
Teh stupid, it burns!
Too bad, that means you never got down to this truly epic pearl of wisdom:
Yes, capslock on and the highest percentage of spelling and grammatical errors I've ever seen in one place.
The goggles, they do nothing!
"My birthday was August 6, the anniversary of the day "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima.
I have not yet made such a significant mark on the world."
Thankfully few people have.
@#106:
When I was in Germany a few weeks ago, all I needed to know was "grosse bier dunkel" and "danke".
Seeeee? Ve haf vays of making you learn!
(Oh, and the only person who shares my birthday is a Mexican actress I've never heard of. Typical.)
Catta @142,
Ve haf vays of making you learn!
Operant conditioning. I'll internalise even the Konjunktiv II, if there is a cold Distelhäuser Hefeweizen for me at the end of the process.
the only person who shares my birthday is a Mexican actress I've never heard of
That's probably not literally the case, unless you and she are the most amazing statistical outliers.
re: #139
Wow, that is whole mess of crazy and stupid right there. I do kind of like the "comparing apples to steak" phrase though...
Now that I have posted my comment on the great Darwin and Lincoln and have read the many comments, and have mulled them over, I find myself pissed that Newsweek had the temerity to do that article on these great men. I used to subscribe to that magazine for years, and finally dropped it because with almost every issue there was an article on religion or an illusion (ha!, I meant allusion, but the word is apt), to it, and I've had enough. I still pick it up at libraries and check the current issue for more mindless crap. An example from the May 5, 2008 issue: "Everything Old Is New Again: An Anglican theologian explains that the resurrection really happened- and that the Kingdom is really coming." And: "Our new bodies will be much more like our present bodies than we dare to imagine." As an atheist, this is sheer mindless puke. Damn Newsweek for having an article on these two great men and at the same time having a puke article as described above. That article should have been in Smithsonian, Harper's, The Atlantic, and heck, even in Free Inquiry. Hey Newsweek, leave the rational articles to those magazines worthy to discourse on quality people, and stick to the puke stuff of which you are more qualified.
Now I'm reminded of Eddie Izzard's skit on Kennedy's in/famous line:
"Ich bin ein Berliner!"
....
"So, what does that mean?"
"It's a slang, he's American, he's a donut, he's a fucking donut!"
if youve ever worked at a newspaper (as i have) youll quickly realize the people writing these articles know very little about the world outside their little bit of "journalism" training. talk to them about history, science, art, etc. and their face goes blank. while we took science courses they took english. they of course believe that they know everything or can know everything. all they have to do is look it up or interview someone that calls themselves an expert.
and this is why shit like this gets written and why we see the same 20 pundits on TV giving their "expert" opinions over and over again.
Okay, I'll qualify that: The only mildly famous person I share my birthday with. ;)
Two things before we can all safely return to awkward comparisons between Lincoln and Darwin... First, Mark Twain's article on the German language is 1.hilarious 2.still mostly accurate. Read and enjoy.
Second, Kennedy's "ich bin ein Berliner" was completely unambiguous in the same way that someone from Hamburg can call himself a Hamburger without anybody thinking even for a split second that he's a beef patty or somesuch. Same joke. It can be made, it's just not the first thing you think of in a serious context. :)
catta @ 148 Yes, "The Awful German Language" from Mark Twain's "A Tramp Abroad" is hilarious, and on a minor scale is his "The Journals Of Germany". Of course Mark Twain is ranked up there on the list of my favorite people. Not only did he blast religion, but also in a humorous way. He has written several books and articles on the insanity and foibles of religion. Good man!
Yes ouch. Very much OUCH.
I had to walk away. The level of "teh dumb" is painful.
Next time: conspiracy theorist Alex Jones vs popular singer D'Angelo
@ catta (#148): The reason Kennedy's quotation is so funny is that in German, one does not use an article when describing things like their place of origin or occupation. "Ich bin Berliner," means the equivalent to "I am a Berliner" (or Hamburger, etc.). The joke comes from the fact that he specifically stated, by the inclusion of the article "ein," that he was a jelly doughnut, not a resident of Berlin. Or at least that's how my German-speaking sister once described it to me.
Oh I couldn't help I went back. Someone actually quoted Casey Luskin to support his point.
And no, his point was not that Casey Luskin is a moron.
Here's a sweet little word that will get you by in some tribe in Africa, according to Stephen Fry:
"Bumgang" = Thankyou!
How about some fractured Douglas Adams to go with it:
So long, and bumgang all the fish!
#139 SteveM
Does somebody remember this website which archives and scores all the most stupid creotroll comments on the web ? There are so many gems in there, it's unbelievable. These two comments definitely belong there.
Well, I get the day Hitler published Mein Kampf, and the birthdays of Nelson Mandela, US Astronaut John Glenn, Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Hunter S Thompson (one of my heroes), Richard Branson and Kristen (Veronica Mars) Bell.
Oh and, er, Vin Diesel. Well, he's got a cool raspy voice...
Sadly - Canadians might agree - Johnny Wayne (of the Wayne and Shuster comedy duo) died on my birthday in 1990.
Fundies Say The Darndest Things.
Patricia @ 154 I went to YouTube and typed in Stephen Frye, Bumgang=Thank you, and a few other tries and that Bumgang did not come up. Is there a more specific title that will take me there?
I think I win the birthday contest. I got Richard Nixon.
But let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a crook.
I think I win the birthday contest. I got Richard Nixon.
But let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a crook.
Raul Duke may have something to say about that.
Leukocyte @152,
that's exactly right. Except that I think few Berliners would call a jelly doughnut a Berliner (I don't hang out with Prussians so I'm not sure, but IIANM they'd call it a Pfannkuchen, literally "pancake"). People in some other parts of Germany would call it a Berliner, though. And people in other parts would call it a Krapfen, Kreppel or (my own preference) Fasnetskiachle.
Extreme regional dialectical variations: just one more reason to love German.
Oh, I'm sorry Holbach. It came up in one of the episodes of his game show ..er, QI..?.. sloppy of me. I'll go look to see if I can find it. *red face*
Berliner, Pfannkuchen, Krapfen, Kreppel and Fasnetskiachle.
drooool aaraaaaaaaaaaaaaaarhrahrhaaaaaaaa
/homer
Wow, what an article. Next week maybe they should do a comparison between apples and oranges to see which one is more important in history.
Frivolous comparison, frivolous article, frivolous conclusion. Why not just do two articles on the importance of each person rather than make it into a competition? Is our society that messed up that we need something to be competitive in order to be interesting? It's just another example showing the mediocrity of mass media.
This has to be a put-on, there is no way that anyone "intelligent enough" to turn a computer on could write like this.
I read through some of the comments, the idiocy is breathtaking.
Dr J, #165, wrote:
Hang on, Dr J - maybe they were at a library, where the computers were already turned on for them.
Oh, wait - I just saw the flaw in that theory - that someone like this might frequent a library, or even know what one was (other than a place they might go to find stuff to burn) or what can happen there.
There's a hip rock'n'roll singalong church in my city that has a cafe attached - maybe they have teh internets as well.
1809 seems to have been something of a wonder year for producing prominent figures. Besides Lincoln and Darwin, Poe, Tennyson, Mendelssohn, Gogol, Gladstone, and some others were born in 1809.
The only prominent person who claims my birthday is Issac Asimov, and that was not certain.
There's a real mixed bag o' folks, living and dead, sharing my birthday, 2 September. Lessee -- Keanu Reeves, Salma Hayek, Cleveland Amory, Jimmy Connors, Christa McAuliffe, Terry Bradshaw, Peter Ueberroth, the controversial 1970s political spouse Martha Mitchell, chemist Wilhelm Ostwald, painter Romare Beardsley, and Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawaii. However, according to Wikipedia, the only person of note born on the exact same day as me was former NHL player and coach Mario Tremblay.
I also found out that Margaret Thatcher and Lenny Bruce were both born on 13 October 1925. Maybe someone will write an article comparing and contrasting their lasting contributions to comedy. Of course, it's probably even funnier that George W. Bush was born on the same day (6 July 1946) as Sylvester Stallone.
Humm. Interesting. Would the Falklands fiasco count as comedy?
Nah nevermind. Bruce in a landslide.
Who was more important Goerge Bush, or Sylvester Stallone ?
I'm sure Newsweek, 6 July 2016 might come up with an article like this, if it still exists, for the few braindead people who might still be reading it.
The importance of people ? What does that even mean ? The importance in terms of what ? Penis size ?
Want to pass this along before it's forgotten. Tonight on CSPAN, Washington Journal, 6 to 7 PM, a call in program to a guy from The Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life. All about religion in American life, statistics on church attendance, beliefs in god according to persuasion, and a part where christians state their reason for belief. So as not to belabor this crap, it was stated that a certain percentage of atheists believe in a god! We've all heard this, but let's move on. One of the calls was from a black baptist from the south who kept on puking crap about jesus proving he is god, walking on water, and other gems of insanity that are just too painful to relate. The best call was from an obvious atheist from Connecticut who stated that there are two blatant facts of religion; one is the child who is religious because he is ignorant, and the other is the adult because of stupidity. Good man! That was all he said and hung up. The guy from Pew gave no response. Maybe the caller is a Pharyngulite!
I used to think that journalists dumbed down their writing to reach a wider audience. Over the past several years, however, I've come to the conclusion that journalists who write innane articles like this one are actually performing at the peak of their abilities. It's not a facade -- they really are that stupid.
Milla Jovovich. Sigh. Everybody else on 17 Dec? Meh. Except maybe Bob Guccione. He has made considerable contribution to Western art and culture.
I found it!!!
One boo-boo it's actually abumgang = thankyou. Eaton tribe of Cameroon.
8:25/9:45 the word discussion starts. But really the whole QI series is worth watching, it's what I imagine we could have a PZ show with the OM's and regulars as guests. It would be hysterical. Gowd, is that Allen character really the stupidest man in England?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8pw9D7TBwE&feature=related
Oh and Holbach, abumgang for getting me to watch all those episodes again, it was fun! ;)
At #69
"Oh sweet, my birthday is the day that Einsten's paper introducing "E=mc^2" was published. Kick ass."
September 27th is it?
In case anyone is curious, you can read an English translation of Einstein's 2nd paper on special relativity, "DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?" here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
"The results of the previous investigation lead to a very interesting conclusion, which is here to be deduced."
It's a very short paper. Note that E=mc^2 wasn't the notation that Einstein used in this paper.
George
Patricia @ 174 Just finished watching the episode with the word "abumgang". It's at the end of the program. Funny stuff! So by typing in Get Inqiuries-1, I go right to it and all the other programs. Thank again.
QI is a brilliant show - I'm a bit annoyed that it's never made it to television in Australia and we're dependent on downloading to see it.
Sorry if someone else has explicitly mentioned this, but Lincoln and Darwin don't just share the same birthday, they share the same birth year. So they were actually, physically born on the same day. Not that it makes the Newsweek article any more sensible.
Actually, I guess you could argue that while Lincoln was born on February 12, Darwin was born on 12 February.
Don't like to dignify the stupid Noiseweek article with an answer, but I must say Lincoln was more important than Darwin. If Darwin did not exist, someone like Wallace would have figured out and publicized the theory of evolution. If not for Lincoln, the western side of the Atlantic would have devolved into a bunch of petty nation-states, in a process that we sometimes call Balkanization.
I share mine with Nietsche. And China's first manned spaceflight.
This Darwin-Lincoln common birthday stuff is old news, going all the way back to 1894! Check out what Ingersoll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll
had to say:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/on_abraham_…
On the 12th of February, 1809, two babes were born -- one in
the woods of Kentucky, amid the hardships and poverty of pioneers;
one in England, surrounded by wealth and culture. One was educated
in the University of Nature, the other at Cambridge.
One associated his name with the enfranchisement of labor,
with the emancipation of millions, with the salvation of the
Republic. He is known to us as Abraham Lincoln.
The other broke the chains of superstition and filled the
world with intellectual light, and he is known as Charles Darwin.
Nothing is grander than to break chains from the bodies of men
-- nothing nobler than to destroy the phantoms of the soul.
Because of these two men the nineteenth century is
illustrious.
My birth date is the same as John Lennon's and identical to (same day & year) as John Entwistle's. Am neither as wealthy nor as talented as either, but at least I'm still alive :)
Assuming 3 people born every second, about 250,000 share a specific birthdate.
Assuming 7 billion people on the planet, about 20 million share a given birthmonth and day.
@Leukocyte
Goshdarnit, I just can't let this go. ;) No, the inclusion of the article doesn't make any difference whatsoever, and it is used -- I've said and heard both (and including the article is slightly more elegant). It can be used without raising eyebrows for ein Berliner/eine Berlinerin, ein Hamburger/eine Hamburgerin etc. Again, the joke is possible, but I can assure you not a single person listening to that speech then or now had the Pfannkuchen as a first association.
Trust me on this. German is my native language and once you live in Berlin you inevitably spend some time debunking this for visitors. Along with the "the first bomb dropped on Berlin in WW2 killed the only elephant in the zoo" myth.
Fun fact, though: We also have a pastry called "Amerikaner". I've heard people explain "ich bin ein Amerikaner" dozens of times without the Germans present thinking it was funny or unusual in any way. But then, we don't have a sense of humour to begin with... 0:-)
@ #130
That's how I always thought of my birthday (June 26). It made for a neat, symmetrical distribution of gifts over the course of the year. :-D
It was also the day Kennedy told Berliners he was a jelly donut.
November 21st:
Rene Margritte, Voltaire and...
...bjork?!
Funny, when I went to school, the surname of leader of the Confederate States was spelled D-A-V-I-S.
I recently canceled my Time Magazine subscription after more than 15 years since, as I felt it, more and more articles approached honest-to-goodness Newsweek stupidity. But Newsweek, on the other hand, seems to have gone from bad to braindead during the same period.
^_^J.
Yeah, I share my birthday with Spike Milligan and Dusty Springfield.
On the down side, I have the current pope and Jimmy Osmond.
On this day in history, in 1943, one Dr Hoffmann experiments with LSD.
In 1917, Lenin arrived in St Petersburg after being exiled in Finland.
In 1512, Martin Luther went on a diet of worms, or something like that.
Here in North Rhine-Westphalia, the doughnuts are called Berliners, and very nice they are too.
I finally read the article, and it does admit that comparing the two is hardly apt. So saying which was "more important" comes down to the idea that if not for Darwin, Wallace or someone like him would come up with evolution, while Lincoln was unique.
Unfortunately for Newsweek, that begs several questions.
Lincoln, after all, rode anti-slavery sentiment to the presidency, he didn't create it. Likewise, opposition to secession wasn't a one-of-a-kind position with Lincoln. While Lincoln's imprint on the nation is no doubt strong and individual, it is not clear that history would have been vastly different (let alone worse) without Lincoln.
Evolution by natural selection had been brought up by Patrick Matthew, William Wells, and James Hutton well before either Darwin or Wallace. So why hadn't the idea caught on?
It's because there was little data behind these ideas, and the ideas weren't developed. New Scientist once made the case that evolution would not have soon prevailed with Wallace either, for it is an unfortunate fact that it matters that Wallace had neither the elitist background nor the scientific clout of Darwin, hence would not have been given much heed.
It's also true that Wallace probably could never have made the powerful case that Darwin did, for the latter man was able to afford the trip on the Beagle, and he had studied biology rather better than Wallace did.
So for both good reasons and bad, Darwin was the man who could and did command the attention of scientists and the public, hence evolution became accepted by intellectuals in a couple decades or so.
Would evolution by natural selection have eventually prevailed, even without Darwin? Yes, certainly. However, Newton's ideas would have prevailed eventually without Newton, too. We have to be glad that Newton came up with them when he did, for he changed the world well before anyone else would have discovered all that he did. Likewise with Darwin. Sure, evolution is science, and it does not depend upon a single person to be developed. Yet if evolution had been only in Wallace's hands, the forces of reaction might have delayed the acceptance of evolution (and a founding theory for biology) for decades, perhaps longer.
Of course there is almost certainly no science that wouldn't eventually exist, had its particular founder or founders not have given birth to it. The point is that timing is important, and that for scientific and social reasons we are almost certainly fortunate that Darwin came up with the idea and had the power and persuasion to convince many people of evolution. Would it really have been just fine to wallow in ignorance for several, or many, more decades because evolution by natural selection didn't have a powerful proponent behind it?
I would suggest that it's more evident that the world would have suffered from a lack of Darwin's revolutionary ideas and his ability to get them across to the public, than that things would have turned out quite differently if Lincoln had not become the US president. There is no evidence that slavery could have lasted much longer in America, and none that the union would have certainly split, without Lincoln.
But stupidity and prejudice might have lasted much longer in the entire world without Darwin. Contrary to rot like Expelled, one should almost certainly see Nazism as a non-Enlightenment reaction against modernity. Those who defeated the Nazis hung on to the Enlightenment, which was continued and increased via Darwin and his theory. Evolution was often a force for progress (including racial progress), which one can see in issues of Scientific American from the 1920s and 1930s.
I don't mean to discredit Lincoln at all, I merely wish to point out that he was the embodiment of American (northern, mainly) ideals, which is why he was elected. He pulled us through dark times better than many would have, but perhaps less well than a few might have. He deserves his kudos, yet we cannot say that disaster would have ensued without him.
Evolution would have changed biology and society eventually without Darwin. Nevertheless, Darwin almost certainly moved this crucial ignorance-dispelling idea into the fore decades sooner than anyone would have without him (or why hadn't Matthew's exposition of the idea of natural selection done so?). By ensuring the swift acceptance of evolution by society's elites, Darwin quite likely changed the course of the world significantly (there is some chance that Wallace could have persuaded a prominent scientist to support his ideas, of course. I doubt that would have been likely, especially since Wallace didn't have the data Darwin had amassed).
With Lincoln we're left with a question mark. Without him the world might have been quite different. But we'll never know if that really would have been the case, or if roughly the same outcome would have occurred.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Well, after reading most of the article, I have to say that the tone is different in describing Darwin than Lincoln.
There is a decided lack of reverence for Darwin. Now, Lincoln was not half-bad, AFAIK, but look at the choice of words in describing Darwin's qualifications and see if you do not detect a certain bias.
I still get this magazine - I know, I know, it's tepid stuff, but it makes good bathroom reading, and the paper is not too crisp.
dan
Just to make my case from my last post, here is a quote:
Darwin, the man who would almost singlehandedly redefine biological science, started out as an amateur naturalist, a beetle collector, a rockhound, a 22-year-old rich-kid dilettante who, after flirting with the idea of being first a physician and then a preacher, was allowed to ship out with the Beagle as someone who might supply good conversation at the captain's table.
The editor of newsweak is a fundie, BTW.
Here let me fix it:
"a highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other religious apologists"
That's so much better. Why do they persist in perceiving science in such an elitist fashion? Last night, I heard Dr William Jungers lecture on H. floresiensis. Little jargon, anatomical terms explained well for the layperson... he's a better guy to have a beer with than Dubya.
It just goes to show how piss poor teh nooze has gotten in this country. I turned on the local CBS affiliate and heard a blurb- "anticipated water breaking". Naively, I thought the upcoming news item would be about downstream levees on the Mississippi in danger of breaching, but it was about Angelina Frickin' Jolie!
As Marc Maron used to say, "Why don't they talk about the issues? We're fighting for our lives!"
The problem is simple (beyond USA! USA!).
In reality, the most influential people in the world (in the long-term) are mathematicians, followed by physicists, and so on down the "purity" line. Politicians are actually way down the the line. Archimedes and Alexander? No question that Archimedes has had more of a political and economic legacy than Alexander --- Alexander was at best an easily replaceable tool of Hellenism, but Archimedes was hellenism.
But politicians make news today --- like celebrities and other worthless people. They make news because their ideas and actions are so relatively unimportant, and therefore clearly understandable at their point of expression by the population at large. It can take mathematics centuries to dribble down from Leibnitz down to the hoi-polloi (still hasn't penetrated most of the human race), or Russell (we are centuries away from people in general understanding set theory).
Darwin will be remembered in four thousand years (if we're still here). In 500 years, Lincoln will be basically forgotten -- how many folks in the world remember Cromwell (outside of British fetishists)?
Katie,
"You should try my birthday: January 30.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_30
"The day Ghandi was assasinated ...
"Man...I must be the antichrist or something :)"
Well, if you insist on spelling Gandhi and assassinated like that, you might well be! :-}
-- Dave (also a Jan. 30; hi!)
my birthday is on 12/21 - and of course in 2012 my birthday is the end of the world - yay
Newsweek is particularily bad. Is the weenie John Meecham still acting as editor? He's not a religous fundie but he's one of thoe hopeless moderates types who just insist that everyone else is wrong, that the truth lies in the middle, blah blah.
Anyway I love the phrase "brain-dead media". I'm gonna use it.I hope it sticks.
"how many folks in the world remember Cromwell (outside of British fetishists)?"
Does being a member of the Commonwealth makes you a British fetishist? There are well over a billion people in the Commonwealth, and I expect they cover some UK history as their parliamentary systems are usually based on that of their former colonial rulers.
I canceled my subscription to Newsweek a couple years ago because they kept putting Jesus on the cover.
Although not much happened on the exact date of my birth, something spectacular happened no my 4th birthday...
Humans landed on the moon.
I remember being allowed to stay up late to watch on TV because my parents wanted me to see history in progress.
Apparently, I share a birthday with:
Alexander the Great
Gregor Mendel
Sir Edmund Hillary
Diana Rigg
Natalie Wood
Ah, Wikipedia, that font of UFI.
PZ beats the earthquake because he's American!
That quote about scientists sounds like a quote out of "the Science of Discworld".