Q&A: Darwin’s Innovation — Uprooted from Its Place?
Darwin’s Innovation — Uprooted from Its Place?
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
In one of the lessons on faith / belief (around lesson 21), you explained the difference between Lamarck’s theory and Darwin’s by saying that Lamarck’s theory does indeed speak about development, but about purposive development toward something preordained, whereas the main innovation of Darwin’s theory is the possibility of development in a blind way and without a guiding hand.
In light of an argument that comes later in your lecture, “the proof from the laws,” (according to which, since the evolutionary process is completely deterministic, then from the moment the Big Bang occurred, everything could in principle be predicted in advance), can one say that you are actually claiming that Darwin’s central “innovation” is not correct (aside from the fact that the practical description of how it happened is apparently correct)?
P.S. — Yesterday I happened to see on Wikipedia that this evening is your birthday. I wish you all the best and much success, and thank you for the excellent material you make accessible.
Answer
Thanks… To tell the truth, I hadn’t noticed. 🙂
Darwin defined a mechanism, and it is correct. Theological interpretations are not connected to science.
Discussion on Answer
There is a big difference. According to Lamarck, in principle it is possible to predict the next stages. According to Darwin, it is not.
How is it possible, according to Lamarck, to predict the next stages?
I said that in principle it is possible to predict them, not in practice. For Lamarck there is a preordained goal, whereas for Darwin there is no preordained goal. Chance dictates the path and the (temporary) destination.
Ah, I understand. If so, what is the preordained goal according to Lamarck?
Improvement, apparently defined on the basis of the environment. Search for material on Lamarck online.
But according to what you say in the “argument from the laws,” in which you explain that since Darwin’s process is deterministic, then from the moment of the Big Bang it was possible, in principle of course, to predict everything in advance, up to the current stage where I’m writing this question to you here on the site.
According to that, then even with Darwin everything can be predicted in advance, and there really isn’t any “chance” randomness that dictates the circumstances.
What I was asking, of course, is whether after the above there is still a difference between Darwin and Lamarck regarding future prediction of development, aside from the description of how the development is actually carried out.
For Darwin, this is causal prediction, not purposive prediction. If I knew all the circumstances at every moment, I could of course know the entire past and future. But nobody knows that. For Lamarck, the prediction is according to the goal. If you know the goal, you can predict what will emerge. For example, according to Lamarck, an animal whose food is high up in a tree will develop a long neck. You can predict that in advance. For Darwin, it depends on luck. If a mutation for a long neck appears, it will survive, but maybe such a mutation won’t appear. True, if I knew all the circumstances, I could also know whether such a mutation would appear, but that is prediction in a completely different sense, and it is also theoretical. Practically speaking, people treat it as a random occurrence and not a deterministic one.
According to what you’re saying, it follows that regarding the fact that the process moves in a purposive direction and works to complete itself, there is no difference between Lamarck and Darwin, and the difference between them is only regarding the question of the form in which this is done. Am I right?