Do you think Darwin should be compared to Newton and Einstein

[Marcus]

I have often seen and somewhat agreed with the notion that the 3 greatest scientists are Newton, Darwin and Einstein

when ever this question is asked, i often see these 3 being the answers for the "top 3 scientists of all time"

but i been doing some thinking...and i wonder if it has do with our notion of science and which science is intellectually challenge

do you think we as a society privilege physics that we view physics and mathematics as a sort of more "intellectually demanding" science then say Biology

can we say Darwin's work on the Origin is just as "intellectually demanding" as Newton's Principia or Einstein's work in Special and General Relativity

is that how science should be judged, by how complex and demanding something is, i feel like Darwin's work on Origins is just as important as the Newton and Einstein's work in physics, but i feel like Biology is still seen as a "lesser" science, like chemistry.. and physics is seen as this "end all be all of science"

what do you guys think, Can Origins stack up the work of physicists not just in importance but of complexity of thought?

here's an image that kind of sums up what i been thinking about

http://sciblogs.co.nz/app/uploads/201...

[blereader]

Can you make that image as one of your profile photos? I want to "like" it :)
These are broad questions. I love biology--it's the science branch that I've studied the most. Still, I can understand why people consider physics and mathematics as more "pure" than biology. When I try to learn quantum physics and dive into the deeper math, it seems like you have to rely less and less on common logic, and more on trusting the formulas. Many concepts in biology and chemistry, and Newtonian physics for that matter, are tangible and visceral. That might be why biology is all that much more dangerous to people, and more easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. So, it is a more daring science, I think, to get into, for that reason. Plus, I'm not sure how you can study genomic sequencing and cancer if, say, you were born and knew nothing about concepts discussed in relation to the body and life, but rather mathematical formulas. But maybe that's my own lack of imagination speaking ;)

[Gerd]

I think it's funny that the math guy in that picture considers himself top of the chain, but I guess he's making a valid point with that.
Practical fields will always have a harder time then the theoretical fields, I guess. Hands on work, that needs you to get your hands dirty to get things done, or proven, is regarded as being of lesser "value" I fear.

[Vicky]

What did Darwin do that would classify him as a scientist?

[Vicky]

blereader wrote: "Vicky wrote: "What did Darwin do that would classify him as a scientist?"

Are you familiar with the term, the "scientific method"? It refers to a process that makes science the discipline that it ..."

Um, yeah, I'm totally familiar with the term and that is why I asked.

[Chan-Ho]

Unfortunately, many people are familiar with the term "scientific method" without understanding its history or what it really means today. Darwin's work was very important for expanding the idea of what the "scientific method" really is, not a mere inductive process of discovery (which would not only philosophically unsound but doesn't actually explain what scientists do) but one of conjecturing explanations which are then subjected to various tests, not just experiments, but explanatory tests and thought experiments.

Michael Ghiselin basically wrote a whole book about this, The Triumph of the Darwinian method, but probably you (and I) are better off just reading a summary of such writings, e.g.

Francisco J. Ayala, Darwin and the scientific method.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences… 2009
DOI:10.1073/pnas.0901404106
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper...

[Aaron]

rutherford is smarter than darwin

[Forked]

Darwin simply postulated a seemingly new creation myth that was deemed acceptable by egotistical atheists. Since no new species has "evolved" within the range of proven carbon 14 dating (80- 100,000 years) evolution remains as unproven as the Pentateuch's creationism... Newton simply extrapolated his nisi laws from statistical consistencies... Einstein, on the other hand, was the greatest scientist since Galileo.

[Ayatul]

That’s a popular and fascinating trio — Newton, Darwin, and Einstein often top the list in discussions about the most influential scientists in history, and for good reason:

- **Isaac Newton** laid the foundation of classical physics with his laws of motion and universal gravitation. His work unified the motion of objects on Earth and in the heavens — a massive leap for science.

- **Charles Darwin** revolutionized biology with his theory of evolution by natural selection. He provided a unifying explanation for the diversity of life and our place in it.

- **Albert Einstein** transformed our understanding of space, time, and energy. His theories of relativity reshaped physics and led to developments in cosmology, quantum theory, and even GPS technology.

Each of them didn't just add knowledge — they redefined how we think about reality.