Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is Lamarckism better suited to Christianity than Darwinism?



KF: get yourself a Webster's. And if you think the Gospel on Mars Hill counts, then you're talking out of Uranus. Henry Crun
HC: That's looking pretty much like a selectively hyperskeptical dismissal, which is self refuting. Kindly explain what would count as "evidence," as "objective," and as "objective evidence," and show me why your criteria for your dismissals would also consistently allow us to access the past as reasonable knowledge, would allow us to reasonably ground first principles of reasoning, and would allow us to reasonably ground ANY major worldview. KF kairosfocus
KF, Thanks, but there's objective evidence for neither God nor Lamarckism there. Henry Crun
HC: Pardon, I am a bit busy with dealing with having been neatly fished by Zorpia, but my thought is, that IIRC, there are in fact ways by which experiences affect gene switches and histones etc as well as the broader epigenetic side of inheritance. So, Lamarck may have a sliver of a point. I won't get into the debate as to whether across time Darwin was inclining to Lamarck, and as to whether Lamarck was closer to traditional Darwinism than we typically think. KF kairosfocus
HC: I think you need to start further back, at worldviews grounding, and clean up from there, the modern mindset is truly tangled up from the roots. Then, if you have been imbibing a bit much of the talking point line from Dawkins et al and their fans, I suggest you have a look here for starters [Dawkins et al are poster boys on the tangles I just mentioned], and onwards, this may help as regards the warrant for the Christian faith. KF kairosfocus
Old Army 94, Well, I don't think so. It's difficult to make a persuasive case for Christ being the son of God when there is no objective evidence for that God. As far as Lamarckism is concerned, the fact that the sons of circumcised males still universally need to be circumcised, renders it false. Henry Crun
Actually, Henry Crun, you are unfairly dismissing the 'evidence' for Christianity. Now, whether or not you ultimately conclude it is true, that is up to you. But, from a purely historical perspective, you are facing some mighty odds if you are attempting to make a case against it. As for Lamarckism, would not the discovery of epigenetic phenomena provide some measure of support? OldArmy94
Just based on the question, it appears that you are looking for an answer that supports the religion rather than one that supports the evidence. Is there any wonder why their is resistance to include ID in the science class? Acartia_bogart
Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction.
Christianity per Romans 5:12-15
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
It seems Lamarckism asserts:
an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity
where Christianity asserts: an inherent progressive tendency driving mankind (not all organisms) continuously towards greater wickedness (not complexity) -- but can be remedied by the gift of grace of God. So I don't see where Lamarckism is better suited than Darwinism. Christianity deals with the problems with man's inmost nature which Darwinian/Lamarckism philosophy says nothing about, even though it's a prime example of how broken we really are due to unbelief. awstar
Irrelevant. Lamarckism is unsupported by evidence. Although one could argue that fact actually does make it suited to Christianity. Henry Crun
We need to be more humble. Its possible there are other options for mechanisms to bring great biological changes . I think there is as YEC must believe this . i say people are case in point. Behold our looks. How did that happen from the few a few thousand years ago. its not gradual and it wasn't by selection.God wouldn't let everyone but the right breeding pair keel over yill the right looks came. Explain man and I think one has explained much. Robert Byers
No. TimT
Certainly, Lamarckism is goal orientated. That is the big difference between the two, and from our observations living things have purpose. Andre

Leave a Reply