Newsweak joins Lincoln-Darwin cult
The coincidence that Lincoln and Darwin share the same official birthdate hardly deserves mention in "Ripley's Believe It or Not," but this coincidence has become a cover story of Newsweak magazine. Lincoln and Darwin have nothing significant in common. And we are not even sure of Lincoln's actual birthdate, because he was born on the frontier, where people tended to lose track of dates. The article strains in vain to find something significant in common between the two men:
.
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). As we approach their shared bicentennial, there is already one book that gives them double billing, historian David R. Contosta's "Rebel Giants," with another coming early next year from New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik. Contosta's joint biography doesn't turn up anything new, but the biographical parallels he sets forth are enough to make us see each man afresh. Both lost their mothers in early childhood. Both suffered from depression (Darwin also suffered from a variety of crippling stomach ailments and chronic headaches), and both wrestled with religious doubt. Each had a strained relationship with his father, and each of them lost children to early death. Both spent the better part of their 20s trying to settle on a career, and neither man gave much evidence of his future greatness until well into middle age: Darwin published "The Origin of Species" when he was 50, and Lincoln won the presidency a year later. Both men were private and guarded. Most of Darwin's friendships were conducted through the mail, and after his five-year voyage on HMS Beagle as a young man, he rarely left his home in the English countryside. Lincoln, though a much more public man, carefully cultivated a bumpkin persona that encouraged both friends and enemies to underestimate his considerable, almost Machiavellian skill as a politician.
Look at that -- there are even two new joint biographies about Lincoln and Darwin. This has really gone too far.
There have also been Lincoln-Darwin essay contests as part of Darwin Day celebrations and there has even been a huge Wikipedia edit war over whether to note the birthdate coincidence in Darwin's biography (the coincidence was finally omitted).
IMO both Lincoln and Darwin are greatly overrated.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/02/2008 04:14:00 PM
28 Comments:
> Lincoln and Darwin have nothing significant in common. <
Darwin and Hitler have nothing in common but you try to link them together. Most attribute this to sheer stupidity on your part.
I never said that Darwin and Hitler had anything in common, idiot. I only said that Darwinism influenced eugenics and eugenics influenced Hitler.
Historians see the connection. All the Anti-defamation League could say was that Darwin did not "need" Hitler, which is not the same as saying that Darwin did not influence Hitler.
This is part of the celebration that the Darwin-nuts are planning next year. By associating Darwin with Lincoln they hope to convince the doubters that old Chuck was somehow a great man.
The best biography of Darwin is appropriately entitled "Darwin," written by Desmond and Moore, 1991. The authors are typically old-fashioned believers in Darwinist doctrine: but unlike most biographers, they aren't in awe of old Chuck; they present a warts-and-all picture.
One odd thing is that Darwin and Karl Marx were quite friendly with each other: odd, because Darwin was a 19th century Liberal, a devout believer in the free-market capitalist economics that Marx violently ranted against. The mystery is explained, I think, by the fact that the underlying motive of both Darwin and Marx was really opposition to all religions; and especially to Christianity.
"Lincoln and Darwin have nothing significant in common."
I agree that what they wrote is a stretch as they have one important thing in common: Both men shaped the world as we know it by having teh guts to do what was unpopular at the time. Everything else written is as ancillary when one considers the incalcuable ways both men directly and indirectly affected the future.
"By associating Darwin with Lincoln they hope to convince the doubters that old Chuck was somehow a great man."
No, they're probably drawing the comparison for the reason stated above.
"One odd thing is that Darwin and Karl Marx were quite friendly with each other: odd, because Darwin was a 19th century Liberal, a devout believer in the free-market capitalist economics that Marx violently ranted against. The mystery is explained, I think, by the fact that the underlying motive of both Darwin and Marx was really opposition to all religions; and especially to Christianity."
Or it can be explained by the simple fact that not everyone needs to surround themselves exclusively with people who agree with them. I have plenty of friends whom I won't talk politics with due to our differing opinions, but that doesn't stop me from having a beer with them on regular occaions.
Larry: I'm really glad I found your blog. So far it has provided good laughs and entertainment despite the fact that it disturbs me that there are people out there who actually think like you.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>>> By associating Darwin with Lincoln they hope to convince the doubters that old Chuck was somehow a great man. <<<<<<
I think that it is just the Darwinists who make a big deal about the birthdate coincidence. I think that the Lincoln worshippers ignore the coincidence.
There would not even be this silly comparison of Lincoln and Darwin if it had not been for the birthdate coincidence. One was a scientist and the other was a politician and lawyer. Comparing them is like the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges.
Maybe that inscription in the Lincoln Memorial should be changed to the following:
In this temple,
as in the hearts of the people
for whom he was born on the same day as Charles Darwin,
the memory of Abraham Lincoln
is enshrined forever.
I am very disturbed to see a major publication, Newsweek, join the Lincoln-Darwin cult.
The other Jim said,
>>>>> Both men shaped the world as we know it by having teh guts to do what was unpopular at the time. <<<<<
What Lincoln did was not unpopular with Unionists who approved of the Civil War. And lots of people have the guts to do what is unpopular.
>>>>> it disturbs me that there are people out there who actually think like you. <<<<<
In many ways, more people think like me than think like you.
> What Lincoln did was not unpopular with Unionists who approved of the Civil War. <
It was unpopular with a great deal of the people in the north and nearly everyone in the south.
> And lots of people have the guts to do what is unpopular. <
It isn't always guts. You intentionally take unpopular causes to get the attention that you so desperately seem to need.
> In many ways, more people think like me than think like you. <
How would you know? Most of your human contact seems to be on the Internet and here it seems that few people agree with you.
Even Darwinist fanatics Sleazy PZ Myers and Larry Moran are scoffing at the Darwin-Lincoln link.
It's true that Darwin's notions had a great impact on history, although that impact was harmful and "vicous," as even Darwinist evolutionary biologist Michael R. Rose has the guts to admit.
Darwin was anti-slavery, as part of his 19th century Liberal-capitalist- free enterprise politics. That's the only similarity with Lincoln that I can detect.
I didn't mean that Darwin and Marx were friends: they never met. But Marx sent a copy of Das Kapital to Darwin inscribed "from a secret admirer" (p.601 of the Desmond-Moore biography of Darwin.) Darwin wrote that it was a "great work," according to the biographers. It's hard to see how he concluded that, since "the German language befuddled him." But he sent a genial reply to Marx.
Marx admired Darwin for contributing a materialistic doctrine about the origin of species. Since Marxism is a materialistic system, it could hardly have thrived without the "creation myth" that Darwin provided.
If Marxism was so "materialistic", how come its practitioners have been characterized by unending abject destitution?
I meant that the impact of Darwin's notions on history was harmful and "vicious." Sorry about the typo.
Under Stalin the "creative Darwinism" of T.D. Lysenko was taught to Soviet school-kids. It stressed inheritance of acquired characteristics and yet was Darwinist enough, since Darwin also believed that inheritance of acquired characteristics plays an important role in evolution. (A fact that in rarely mentioned.)
After Stalin was discredited, Soviet kids were indoctrinated in orthodox neo- Darwinism, beginning in about 1966. They were also indoctrinated in materialism and in Marxism, of course.
"Materialism" in this sense ascribes ultimate reality to something material, and assumes that mind, consciousness, etc. are by-products of material processes: or is some similar doctrine.
When East Germany was still under Communist rule, I met a woman from there who would say "Don't you see? The things you can't see (such as consciousness) come from the things you can see!" (Meaning material objects.) Clearly she'd been taught materialism in school, and she couldn't see how anyone could disagree with it.
Maybe that will be chanted by American kids, if the Darwin-buffs succeed in their drive to control the schools. "Kiddies, repeat: the things you can't see come from the things you can see!"
I don't think that Lincoln changed a lot of opinions. Those who believed in states' rights before the Civil War believed in states' rights after the Civil War. The same with racism. Lincoln was a racist himself.
I wonder what "disturbs" one commenter about the way that Larry thinks? It's true that Larry advocates freedom of thought and freedom of discussion.
Hence his effort to maintain a completely uncensored blog: which has unfortunately been undermined by obnoxious behavior on the part of some trolls. I think that an uncensored blog is an admirable idea, but hard to attain.
Larry questions things, and doesn't automatically swallow doctrines which are propagated by conventional "authorities." But I don't find that disturbing at all.(Except when he questions what I myself say! But I manage to stand that, too.)
PZ Myers has some nutty notions about Larry, and has called him a "creationist." Well, if Larry's a creationist, then Dawkins is an Ayatollah from Afghanistan, for sure. Ignorant and/or fanatical people like PZ confuse questioning some evolutionary doctrine with being a "creationist." And I'm not a creationist either, dudes. Although I greatly prefer creationists to Darwin-apostles.
Mathematician Granville Sewell recently called the Darwinist notion of evolution caused by the struggle for survival "the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." I hate to say it, but I agree with Granville: who is definitely not a creationist.
If my views are somehow disturbing to old-fashioned people who still believe in the antiquated and, I think, foolish, notions of Darwin, or in some similar notions, I really don't care.
Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>> Hence his effort to maintain a completely uncensored blog: which has unfortunately been undermined by obnoxious behavior on the part of some trolls. <<<<<<
Yes, sometimes I just have to draw the line. For example, I just had to censor the following:
(1) -- gossip about my private affairs.
(2) -- gross misstatements of objective facts. For example, a newspaper reported that Judge Jones said that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but ViU lied about the newspaper report by saying that Jones said that he would follow the law in making his decision. Dishonest ViU was of course trying to dodge my charge that Jones was in effect improperly giving legal advice to the new school board members by hinting that they should not bother repealing the ID policy prior to judgment because it would not do them any good. Jones' hint could not have been unintentional -- he of course knew that the new school board members opposed the ID policy and that the only action that they could take that could affect his decision would be repeal of the ID policy.
"Even Darwinist fanatics ... are scoffing at the Darwin-Lincoln link."
That's because, although they are very interested in the results (if any) of a coincidence, they quite properly have no interest in coincidences per se. A coincidence by itself is just a statistical fluke. A Royal Flush is no less likely than any other unique hand -- just more noticeable because of the defined rules. Purely psychological.
'Nonymous said...
>>>>>"Even Darwinist fanatics ... are scoffing at the Darwin-Lincoln link."
That's because, although they are very interested in the results (if any) of a coincidence, they quite properly have no interest in coincidences per se. <<<<<<<
What? That statement is inconsistent -- how could they be interested in the results of coincidences but not be interested in the coincidences themselves? And ironically, Darwinism itself is based on coincidences -- zillions of them.
> (1) -- gossip about my private affairs. <
You consider correction of your lies about your legal cases to be "gossip about your private affairs".
> (2) -- gross misstatements of objective facts. <
As Larry makes regularly.
> For example, a newspaper reported that Judge Jones said that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but ViU lied about the newspaper report by saying that Jones said that he would follow the law in making his decision. <
Wrong. I was only pointing out the fact that Jones' actions would be following the law. Larry dishonestly claimed that Jones was giving legal advice and when he realized that everyone saw through his misinterpretation and that he could not defend himself logically, he censored further posts.
Larry's censorship occurs in two cases:
1. One of his many lies about himself has been exposed.
2. He is unable to defend his contentions logically and realizes it. (He is rarely able to defend his position but he usually does not realize it.)
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> You consider correction of your lies about your legal cases to be "gossip about your private affairs". <<<<<<
You dunghill, there was gossip about where I live, how I live, my financial status, my relatives, etc..
>>>>>> For example, a newspaper reported that Judge Jones said that the Dover school board election results would not affect his decision, but ViU lied about the newspaper report by saying that Jones said that he would follow the law in making his decision. <
Wrong. I was only pointing out the fact that Jones' actions would be following the law. <<<<<<
You mendacious dunghill, you repeatedly lied that Jones told the newspaper or that Jones said that his decision would follow the law -- e.g., here
"For the umpteenth time, Judge Jones told a newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision."
Yes, Cretin. And telling a newspaper that he would follow the law and do his job the way he is supposed to is not giving legal advice no matter how many times you repeat it.
and here:
The bottom line is that saying that you will decide a case according to the law is not giving advice to those who would wish that the decision would be based on an upcoming popularity contest.
And you repeatedly ignored my statement that Jones told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. You told your lie once too often on this blog and I finally just got fed up and censored your comment.
> You dunghill, there was gossip about where I live, how I live, my financial status, my relatives, etc.. <
You lying snake. You censored posts that said nothing about the pitiful way you live, your indigence, etc. They only mentioned your disastrous record in your legal cases, which is public record.
> You mendacious dunghill, you repeatedly lied that Jones told the newspaper or that Jones said that his decision would follow the law -- e.g., here
"For the umpteenth time, Judge Jones told a newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision." <
You pathetic cretin, your quote proves that Judge Jones would follow the law. i.e. the election results would not affect his decision.
> And you repeatedly ignored my statement that Jones told the newspaper that the school board election results would not affect his decision. <
No. I cited that statement to show that he did not give legal advice.
> I finally just got fed up and censored your comment. <
Since, as usual, you could not defeat my position with logic.
You call things “gossip” even when they are the truth. Many people have pointed out the undeniable fact that you are a mindless cretin, which is an indisputable fact. Do you consider that “gossip”.
Your arbitrary censorship is always the result of fear or frustration. You aren’t kidding anyone.
ViU barfed,
>>>>>You pathetic cretin, your quote proves that Judge Jones would follow the law. i.e. the election results would not affect his decision. <<<<<
Let's go over this again, you stupid fathead, starting with what Judge Jones actually told the newspaper, without the "i.e." crap. He told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision. The next question is what message(s) that statement conveyed. You say that he conveyed the message that he would follow the law -- even if that message were conveyed, it would be of no consequence because it could not influence the behavior of the school board. There was another message: everyone knew that the only way the election results could possibly affect his decision would be by a repeal of the ID policy. So by saying that the election results would not affect his decision, he was also essentially saying that a repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. In other words, he was telling the school board that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. That is the legal advice that he was improperly giving the school board.
Some people don't have the reasoning ability of a two-year-old.
> he was also essentially saying that a repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. <
Exactly. He would follow the law. If you had the logical capacity of a two year old, you might think that was legal advice. Then again, you do have the logical capacity of a two year old. That is the problem.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> he was also essentially saying that a repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision. <
Exactly. He would follow the law. <<<<<<
Wrong. He could only speak for his own view the law -- he could not speak for other judges' views of the law. In the Supreme Court case of Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the case was dismissed when there was voluntary cessation by the government, and there was no award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs.
The legal advice was that he was telling the school board that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. Since the school board did not repeal the ID policy prior to judgment, they lost all chance that the case could be dismissed on appeal.
I have been over these facts many times already, but the bone of your skull is just too thick for any of it to sink in.
Besides, VIU, I showed that you just plain lied. You said that he told the newspaper that he would follow the law, and he never said any such thing. He told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision.
> The legal advice was that he was telling the school board that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. <
This is no more giving legal advice than telling them it would be dark at midnight. If they decide that they will either need to have lamps or wait for morning does not make it advice. Come on Larry. You can't be as stupid as you are pretending to be. No one could.
> I have been over these facts many times already <
And yet you still don't understand.
Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>> The legal advice was that he was telling the school board that repealing the ID policy prior to judgment would not do them any good. <
This is no more giving legal advice than telling them it would be dark at midnight. . . . You can't be as stupid as you are pretending to be. <<<<<<
You are the stupid one, idiot. At the school board meetings, there were discussions as to whether the new school board should repeal the ID policy prior to judgment in order to try to get the case dismissed as moot and maybe avoid a possible (or probable) award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. A former school board member presented an attorney's report advising the school board that such repeal of the ID policy might accomplish this. Judge Jones' statement implicitly gave the school board opposite advice. Some of the new board members said that they did not want to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment because they wanted to hear what Judge Jones had to say, and these members might have been swayed by Jones' statement. Even Fatheaded Ed Brayton said that Judge Jones was giving the school board legal advice. Even if Jones could speak for himself, he could not speak for judges in higher courts. I gave a Supreme Court precedent, Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), where a government's voluntary cessation resulted in the dismissal of a case and no award of attorney fees. By not repealing the ID policy prior to judgment, the school board forever lost the chance that a higher court might (and was likely to) rule in their favor on the issue.
I have thoroughly demolished your claims but I know that you trolls just never stop kicking a dead horse.
> A former school board member presented an attorney's report advising the school board that such repeal of the ID policy might accomplish this. <
A former school member suggested looking at a calendar and seeing if it was Sunday and courts would be closed. Then the calendar showed that it was indeed Sunday, thereby implicitly giving legal advice.
You are an idiot and you are proving it more every day.
My preceding comment said,
>>>>> I have thoroughly demolished your claims but I know that you trolls just never stop kicking a dead horse. <<<<<<
And you have just demonstrated that here.
Larry quoted, then wrote, "My preceding comment said,
>>>>> I have thoroughly demolished your claims but I know that you trolls just never stop kicking a dead horse. <<<<<<
And you have just demonstrated that here."
Only if you're the dead horse, in which case you are correct, we continue to kick you.
Post a Comment
<< Home