Cultural Change: Naturalistic or Personalistic?

The personalistic theory of scientific history is the idea that change/history/progress is attributable to the ideas of unique individuals (such as Einstein, Darwin, Hitler, or Napolean). It requires these special people for these advancements to take place.
The naturalistic theory is the idea that change/history/progress is a result of the intellectual and cultural climate of the times (such as how Galileo's discoveries and other heliocentric evidences were not accepted by society, or how evolution is still often not accepted today). If society doesn't want to accept a scientific truth, evidence is irrelevant.

Which do you think is more influential? Does it all fall into a single category, or is it a mix of both?

And what do you think about the influences of the naturalistic theory in censoring scientific progress? What do you think about the necessity of personalistic theory in scientific progress?

Addendum:
The naturalistic theory also proposes that had these special persons not existed, the ideas would have still come to light. As we should all know, Darwin's discoveries were replicated simultaneously [or within a short time frame] with no input from his research (e.g. Gregor Mendel).
Scientific Zeitgeists can inhibit discovery. John Garcia's research that challenged stimulus-response learning theory (the dominant theory of the time) could not get published, even though it was widely considered to be very well executed.

science is a joke to me. attempting to act like you know everything about the world and the universe is so dumb

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

science is a joke to me. attempting to act like you know everything about the world and the universe is so dumb

Science is literally saying you don't know everything about the world but want to find out.

Charles Stover wrote:

Science is literally saying you don't know everything about the world but want to find out.

Sure, but many people have gone beyond that and say that everything there is to be found has been found. Which is untrue.

-0- D i o r -0- wrote:

Sure, but many people have gone beyond that and say that everything there is to be found has been found. Which is untrue.

Nobody has ever said that.