Lincoln vs. Darwin?!?!

At the gym, there are a lot of old magazines, including an old Newsweek. I've seen this a lot, and every time I see it, I ponder the ridiculousness of the question. I've never read the article and I don't really care to*. Maybe it has a critique on how they both helped and hindered racism in America, or maybe it is more mass-media tripe.

Obviously, there is no reason to pit historical figures against one another in a "battle" for relevance or influence. They're dead. Furthermore, to even compare a man that discovered the process of evolution to a politician is evidence how devalued the theory of evolution is in society. Even as evolution allows advances in the fields of medicine and agriculture, saving the lives of many and improving the lives of everyone, we argue that a lawyer that found himself President at pinnacle moment in our nation's history can hold a candle to it's discoverer.

This is not to say that Lincoln was not influential or important in our history. No, it is only to say that evolution is a powerful and so far, correct set of ideas that lay the foundation of many of the things we take for granted in the modern world. Darwin first published those ideas and, for that, will always be more relevant.

*OK, whatever, they have the same birthday, blah blah blah