This is on the cover article of a special issue of Newsweek (July
7-14th, I think, see <http://www.newsweek.com/id/143742>).
The
inspiration of this question was the odd fact that both were born
on Feb 12, 1809.
So, whose absence would make a bigger difference in the world?
Alfred Wallace also thought of the basic principles of evolution
(but years after Darwin did), but would he had written books with
all the detail that Darwin did? For that matter, much of the facts
presented were found by Darwin while on the "Beagle" - but those
facts existed and someone would have discovered them. Of course,
someone, say Huxley, could have written the books if Wallace
couldn't (but they would have appeared years later than _On the
Origin of the Species_ & _The Descent of Man..._ did in OTL).
Lincoln's election to the Presidency might have sparked the
American Civil War, but the explosion was coming. The southern
planter class would accept only a President who was theirs. The
North and much of the West had had their fill of Southern
presidents. But was Lincoln an indispensable War President? The
author of the Newsweek article, Malcolm Jones, thinks so (which is
why he votes for Lincoln being more im****tant than Darwin).
--
Robert Woodward <robertaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
|
