And two hundred years ago this month, another male baby was born. In fact, it was not only the same month as the first baby, it was also on the same day. He too grew up, becoming a successful lawyer but a failed politician time and time again. That was until he finally secured his Illinois seat, only to move on to be arguably one of the greatest presidents of the United States of America.
I'm sure you know who I am talking about in both cases: Charles Darwin is the former, Abraham Lincoln is the latter.
The current culture, for what it's worth, is very divided on the merits of both of these men. On that score, this said division is over the origin of mankind: In other words, did we come from nothing or did we come from something? It is a highly emotional and religious debate – yes, I did say 'religious' (they both involve a lot of faith) – that has raged for decades, and shows no sign of quieting down.
The other man is someone that I have admired deeply for years, one that I lump with some of the greatest presidents of the USA (Washington and Reagan, for starters). There is quite a split opinion about him, too. And this rift has been around since the American Civil War (okay, it wasn't all that civil). It has come to my attention only recently that Mr. Lincoln is a hero in the northern states, but a heel in the Deep South. I don't believe there are any statues of him in Mobile or Atlanta or Raleigh.
I may be over-simplifying this, but it strikes me as odd that one who has formulated such theories as the survival of the fittest, with all its horrific results should somehow be viewed as an icon of enlightenment. Please, spare me: Darwin is no hero to lovers of freedom. Space and time do not allow a detailed account of the global devastation of the implementation of his theories over the past 100 years. His teachings laid the groundwork for the atrocities of a Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot – and continue even today. I honestly do not believe even Darwin himself intended his theory of evolution would have such a negative impact, morally, physically, and socially.
On the other hand, I think of this other "02-12-09" baby and his influence for good. In Lincoln, as I have understood it (great disclaimer, you must admit), I see that all men and women are to be free, that skin colour should not be a barrier to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His "Proclamation of Emancipation" is clearly one of the greatest pieces of literature in the Western world – not necessarily for its articulation but for its ramification.
My comments today are the stuff of essays and books, not columns, so please bear with me. I just couldn't help noticing the fundamental differences in the influence of these two men, 200 years later. With one, there is a message that condemns people to bondage, but with the other, there is something that elevates them to the freedom that their Creator intended for them.
I am sure Darwin had some good points and no doubt Lincoln had blind spots. That is beside the point. When a theory – for that's what it is – degrades the human person as a mere end product of macro-evolution, with a less-than-hopeful future, I find it hard to wish Charles Darwin a "Happy Birthday." Methinks we would have all been better off if he had stayed on the Galapagos Islands and chased finches for the rest of his days.
On the other hand, when I consider that all men and women are free and deserve the same rights and respect as each other, I celebrate. To be sure, I don't see that freedom expressed in the black culture in both Canada and the USA as it should be, but a twisted translation of the facts is no fault of the founder. Regardless, Lincoln's message of freedom calls for a party, and more than a birthday party.
In fact, if I was throwing the party, I would invite everyone – not just the fittest of the human species.
No comments:
Post a Comment