Distinguished Sir Edward T. Babinski, Distinguished
Gentlemen,
Please accept our congratulations for the scientific high
quality of the document that You have had the iniciative of
publishing in the World Wide Web of computers, in the form
of a well arranged collection of articles and essays on the
so-called evolutionism versus creationism debate, that has
been filling library shelves and school lessons for the
last two centuries since the publication of "Philosophie
Zoologique", by Monsieur Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de
Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, in 1809. In fact, we have
found one of the most clarifying pages on the subject to be
Your lines devoted to the
Chevalier de
Lamarck and other scientists from the first half of the
XIX Century:
Regrettable it is, however, that they are called
"Pre-Darwinians" (or "Darwin´s precursors"), in the
same fashion as certain philosophers are called
"Pre-Socratics". This unfortunate label of "Darwin´s
precursors" seems to assume not just the historical
importance of Mister Charles Darwin as a philosopher of
Nature (or scientist, which is the same), but even the
"scientific correctness" of his views, reminding somewhat
dogmatically of the "political correctness" of liberal
demagogy.
It is important to note that, contrary to what most
creationists wrongly think, "Evolution" does not mean
"Darwinism" at all. Lamarckism (or evolutionary
environmentalism), the inheritance of acquired characters
by direct influence of the environment and by the "besoin"
of the evolving organism, still today stands as the most
credible explanation for the demonstrable and irrefutable
fact of the evolution of life forms. Darwinism cannot
explain phenomena like, for instance, the socio-biological
behaviour of non-progenitor individuals who accept the duty
of sacrificing themselves in the defence of the group
against attackers, or like the formation of very complex
organs (in exempli gratia: the eyes and the binocular
vision of a mammal).
The idea that random mutations can help to "select" the
fittest is an absurd, it is the absurd of the growing
improbability, it is like stating that by adding more than
ninety differently numbered balls to a game of bingo, we
are helping a particular player to win the prize. The vast
majority of random mutations happen to be more of a
hindrance than of an advantage.
At the most, we may consider the possibility that
evolution does not use only one mechanism (like also we
accept that different species evolve at different speeds
inside a given geological period), this is to say, that
sometimes or with some species the environment plays the
main evolutionary rôle, and at other times or with
other species the survival of the fittest plays the
dominant rôle. But to hold without reservations
Mister Darwin´s ideas, is just abandoning a religious
dogmatism only for falling into a scientific dogmatism.
In resume, Lamarck´s ideas are as valid today as
they were in 1809. Nearly two hundred years of research and
discoveries have helped to consolidate his case. It is true
that the Chevalier de Lamarck was misunderstood, that he
was misunderstood from a diversity of scientific and
non-scientific "interpreters", and that a good deal of that
misunderstanding came from wrongly assumed semantics of the
word "besoin". A similar situation to what happened, in
Astronomy, with the famous case of the word "canali" used
by Signore Giovanni Schiaparelli, wrongly translated into
English as "canals", when a better translation for it would
have been "channels", and provoking many people into
believing that the Italian astronomer was declaring the
existence of engineering works built by an intelligent
civilisation on the surface of the planet Mars. In fact,
the French verb "besoin" is closer in meaning to "need"
than to "wish" or "want", and this (and other translation
clarifications) makes Lamarck´s thought more
understandable. We personally had the need of reading a
copy of the original French edition itself, in
possession of the library of the Cleveland Community
College (near Shelby, North Carolina, Confederate States of
America), for knowing first hand what the Chevalier de
Lamarck had said in 1809.
And with this, we finish our letter. Please feel free to
publish this letter in full or in part, to suppress or
modify those parts that You may deem necessary, or to add
Your own notes and references. Be also at will for
including our name, Uniform Resource Locator, or electronic
post address, just in case that some of Your readers may
choose to read also our own document or to communicate with
us.
History, Philosophy, Science, Technique:
http://www.captain-peter-anthony-stonemann-confdrate-states-ship-dixieland.tk/
Receive our Best Confederate Regards, and our
encouragement to continue in Your scientific
endeavour.
For Confederate Independence. Dixieland for ever!
São Paulo, Brazil, 20th September 2004.
Captain P.A. Stonemann, C.S.N.
