J.B. Lamarck -- A Materialist Biologist

J.B. Lamarck -- A Materialist BiologistI. I. Prezent's "J. B. Lamarck A Materialist Biologist" soberly assesses the work of the 18th 19th century biologist Lamarck, whose work is often maligned as pseudo scientific or in opposition to Darwin's views on evolution. Neither of these accusations holds weight, and in fact his work was highly important in the progression of biological science. His materialist proposition that acquired characteristics can be inherited by progeny in accordance

I.I. Prezent's "J.B. Lamarck -- A Materialist Biologist" soberly assesses the work of the 18th-19th century biologist Lamarck, whose work is often maligned as pseudo-scientific or in opposition to Darwin's views on evolution. Neither of these accusations holds weight, and in fact his work was highly important in the progression of biological science. His materialist proposition that acquired characteristics can be inherited by progeny in accordance with the adaptability of the organism within definite conditions has been confirmed by life. He said that everything is created of a necessity which gives rise to an organism's efforts, and therein organs adapt and develop, giving the example of human speech. After his life, idealists concocted the theory that in inheritance the only thing that matters is a static and unchangeable gene, and that organisms only fundamentally alter over generations through random mutation. In other words, they opposed the theory of evolution, though cleverly claiming to defend it. Science in the Soviet Union and elsewhere has had tremendous success in practically applying Lamarck's theory of inducing definite conditions for the development of the organism, specifically in agriculture. However, this does not mean Lamarck was free from limitations -- though these limitations, Prezent argues, did not discredit the materialist character of much of his work, he believed in deism and the cult of the Supreme Being. In other words, he was a product of the French Revolution, and thus his view that man should dedicate his life to the public. Such an assertion is completely anachronistic at this point when we are not dealing with civil society, but building a human society.