In his letters to Hooker and many others, Darwin asserts that his theory is wholly

different from Lamarck’s. Although both theories strive to explain the process of evolution,

Darwin was correct in distancing his theory from Lamarckianism. We will first examine the

teleological implications of each theory and show that these authors came to very different

conclusions on that subject. Second, we will compare each theory’s primary mechanism and find

that such theories have utterly different dependencies and conclusions.

When reading the Philosophie Zoologique, one cannot help but notice elements of

teleology. Lamarck’s theory rests on two laws. The first refers to the use and disuse of organs

while the second law asserts that the results of such use and disuse will be preserved through

inheritance by offspring (Darwin, 579). Lamarck makes it very clear that these laws only apply

to “every animal which has not passed the limit of its development” (ibid.). Such a statement

assumes that there is indeed a limit—a ‘perfection’ that Lamarck describes as humans (577).

Humans are thus the epitome of evolution; the highest organisms on Lamarck’s chain of being

(576). Therefore, all other organisms are simply striving to climb that chain through some innate

drive or necessity in hopes of one day achieving the same status as humans. These elements can

easily lead us to accept that Lamarck’s entire system is “progressive and teleological” (29). Such

a teleological system simply describes the will of the Sublime Author of which he mentions

throughout (574).

It is exactly this teleology which Darwin sought to distance his theory from. His theory is

not based on premises which assume final causes. Darwin started with observations and with

only those did he derive his concept of Natural Selection. Conversely, Lamarck seems to build

his theory on a foundation of teleology very similar to Paley. As Paley’s Natural Theology comes

to assume a Creator based on the observation that the world looks designed, so we can argue that

Lamarck’s theory “is not a scientific theory but a theological theory” (31). Unlike Darwin,

Lamarck does not depend exclusively on his observations of nature to derive his theory. His

argument is constructed on the assumption that there is a “series from the most perfect…right
 2

down to the most imperfect” (“Foreword” para. 4) or that there is an order to be grasped

(“Preliminary Discourse” para. 1). Finding such assumptions in the preface of his Philosophie

Zoologique shows how his argument is based first and foremost on the assumption of teleology

while observations come later. Darwin does not base his theory on “a preconceived metaphysical

order” (Darwin, 31) of this sort, but appeals only to the bare facts and the conclusions they lead

to. From this we can see that Darwin’s theory does not assume teleology but rather denounces it.

It is clear that Darwin’s theory is thus wholly different—even contrary—to Lamarck.

Lamarck and Darwin are both similar in the goal of their respective theories. Each theory

hopes to explain the phenomenon of evolution. However, the mechanics of each theory come to

utterly different conclusions. Lamarck’s theory hinges on a mechanism of necessity (574). All

organisms necessarily want to survive, eating plants or fleeing predators for example. This

necessity to survive continues even through vast environmental changes. From necessity

Lamarck derives his concept of ‘will’. Given environment changes, an organism (note how this

occurs on an individual scale) will be able to adapt based on its own will. Giraffe’s will stretch

their necks to reach food in higher places, passing this adaption of the neck along to its offspring.

Proceeding generations will continue to develop that adaption through the will. However, the

environment must make such will necessary. The giraffe cannot simply will whatever adaptation

it wants, it will only be able to do so given the necessity required by the environment. These

adaptations from the will of the animal lead Lamarck to conclude that the extinction of any

species is impossible. Organisms will variations in order to adapt to environmental changes. An

elephant would ultimately be an adapted mammoth. This would mean that mammoths are not

extinct but that they simply transformed; climbing a little higher up the chain.

Darwin’s theory is very different from what we’ve just described. His mechanism to

explain evolution is Natural Selection. As opposed to Lamarck’s adaptation of the will, variations
 3

in Darwin’s system occur at random. There is no concept of adaptation for Darwin as all

variations are essentially aimless mutations. Variations that are favourable are more often

preserved while detrimental variations tend to disappear when an animal dies before

reproduction. For Darwin, some giraffes were born with long necks while some were born with

short ones. These variations came about randomly through mutation. The long-necked giraffes

were able to get more food while short-necked ones had more trouble. Eventually the short-

necked variation disappeared with the extinction of those giraffes. The long-necked giraffes were

thus naturally selected. It is no wonder why Darwin clearly wanted to distinguish his theory from

Lamarck’s. As opposed to willed adaptation and the continuation of species, we find in Natural

Selection utter randomness and the extinction of species. Although both theories aim to explain

evolution, it is there that the similarities end. The mechanisms powering each theory are clearly

different—even opposed to one another.

From these arguments it is clear that Darwin was correct to assume his theory wholly

different from Lamarck’s. Darwin’s theory contains no “tendency to progression” (475) or

teleology. As argued above, Lamarck’s theory is exactly the opposite. With his assumptions of a

chain of being and a Sublime Author, it is only natural that Darwin took great efforts to avoid

association with Lamarck. Not only by contrasting each theory do we find clashing metaphysical

implications, but we also find completely different mechanisms driving them. Darwin’s Natural

Selection is random and advocates extinction while Lamarck denounces extinction by depending

on “the slow willing of animals” (ibid.). Such differences evidently support Darwin’s aversion of

Lamarckianism.

Word count: 999