  Dietrich and Haider (2014) justify their integrative framework for creativity
founded on evolutionary theory and prediction research on the grounds that
"theories and approaches guiding empirical research on creativity have not been
supported by the neuroimaging evidence". Although this justification is
controversial, the general direction holds promise. This commentary clarifies
points of disagreement and unresolved issues, and addresses mis-applications of
evolutionary theory that lead the authors to adopt a Darwinian (versus
Lamarckian) approach. To say that creativity is Darwinian is not to say that it
consists of variation plus selection---in the everyday sense of the term---as
the authors imply; it is to say that evolution is occurring because selection
is affecting the distribution of randomly generated heritable variation across
generations. In creative thought the distribution of variants is not key, i.e.,
one is not inclined toward idea A because 60% of one's candidate ideas are
variants of A while only 40% are variants of B; one is inclined toward
whichever seems best. The authors concede that creative variation is partly
directed; however, the greater the extent to which variants are generated
non-randomly, the greater the extent to which the distribution of variants can
reflect not selection but the initial generation bias. Since each thought in a
creative process can alter the selective criteria against which the next is
evaluated, there is no demarcation into generations as assumed in a Darwinian
model. We address the authors' claim that reduced variability and individuality
are more characteristic of Lamarckism than Darwinian evolution, and note that a
Lamarckian approach to creativity has addressed the challenge of modeling the
emergent features associated with insight.
