It should be stated that this in no way necessarily lends support to the ID
agenda. A denial of reductionism does not imply supernatural intervention.
As far as I know, none of the people cited above (except maybe Wells) are
ID theorists. They all come from the complexity, self-organization school
that accepts the notions of complex systems and emergent phenomena. (what
Howard VT might call from a Christian theistic perspective: the robust,
form producing economy view). I'm a bit surprised of Glenn's consistent
opposition to this questioning of the hegemony of the DNA only school of
development and evolution since he is well-versed in these complex and
dynamic system issues.
What all this says to me is that we're just beginning to scratch the
surface on how complex systems work, assemble, and originate. We're a far
cry from Mike Behe's "we've opened the black box and now know what could or
could not have happened".
TG
>On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Glenn Morton commented on one of the
>"predictions" I had made about developments in science. I had
>written:
>>* developmental biology will remain largely ignorant about why
>> one cell develops into an elephant and another cell develops
>> into a mouse until it drops its reductionistic fantasy about
>> the role of DNA.
>
>Glen responded:
>"Are you saying that DNA has nothing to do with the development
>of organisms?"
>
>To which I can immediately reply: On the contrary - it has a very
>important role in development.
>
>In my comment, I was concerned about the reductionistic tendency
>within science today which has led numerous people to think that
>if we can only decode the genome, we will have solved the
>problems of development.
>
>Glenn wrote:
>I would suggest Scott Gilbert's _Developmental Biology_ He
>writes: "Nuclear control of cell morphogenesis and the
>interaction of the nucleus and cytoplasm are beautifully
>demonstrated by studies of Acetabularia. ...
>[text omitted]
>This would seem to imply that the nucleus, which is mostly DNA
>controls development."
>
>There are numerous questions here, including: What is the nature
>of this control? Is it the only control?
>
>Gilbert distances himself from the "solely genetic model of
>evolution and development" in a recent paper. I'll quote one
>relevant passage:
>"Just as the cell is seen to be the unit of structure and
>function in the body - not the genes that act through it - so the
>morphogenetic field can be seen as a major unit of ontogenetic
>and phylogenetic change. In declaring the morphogenetic field
>to be a major module of developmental and evolutionary change,
>we are, of course, setting it up as an alternative to the solely
>genetic model of evolution and development. This, however, is
>not to be seen as antagonistic to the principle that genes are
>important in evolution or development. This is not in any way
>denied. But just as the genes make the cells and the cells form
>the body, so the gene products first need to interact to create
>morphogenetic fields in order to have their effects. Changes in
>these fields then change the ways that animals develop." (p.368).
>Gilbert, S.F., Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A. 1996, Resynthesizing
>evolutionary and developmental biology, Developmental Biology,
>173, 357-372.
>
>I'm citing Gilbert because Glenn appealed to him as witness
>against the point I made. I consider that Gilbert is more of an
>ally than an opponent on this issue.
>
>I'm not endorsing everything quoted here - for example, Gilbert's
>constant linking of developmental change with evolutionary
>change. I consider this a linkage resulting from presupposition
>rather than the results of science. If Gilbert were to address
>the distinctions to be made between empirical science and
>historical science, he might conclude that there are two
>separate, but potentially related, issues to be considered. The
>nature of that relationship needs to be carefully probed before
>anything meaningful can be said.
>
>Is this an adequate response, Glenn? I did look out a few other
>writers who could be quoted to show that morphogenesis
>orchestrated by the genome makes no scientific sense. These are
>Goodwin (1985), Nijhout (1990) and Harold (1995). If you want
>this additional material to further respond to your post, please
>let me know.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
> Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
> Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt
*This mission critical message was written on a Macintosh with Eudora Pro*
A special message for Macintosh naysayers:
http://www.macworld.com/pages/july.96/Column.2204.html