Why do people debate the reductionist view on evolution without even understanding what is a reduction?

As I've answered for the past several nights: yup, biology obeys principles found in physics and chemistry. But if you're looking at evolution, then looking at physics and chemistry is is too "micro." You're not going to see selection of phenotypes within a population of organisms. Look at populations over time. Quit squinting.

Evolution - not the descriptive theory of exactly how this or that evolved, which is based on "evidence," but the general algorithm which is implied to rule evolution - IS a "reduction" by your definition. This is what we accept. Well, those of us who do. See, if you accept evolution based on the evidence, to fail to accept that it's an algorithm would be like insisting, in the absence of direct mathematical reductions (actually, there is such an absence if you're that rigorous about it!), that water *might* still actually be flowing downhill by *magic,* and not obeying laws at all. We couldn't even understand evolution if we did not perceive the algorithm, the reduction. You are correct that rigorously, we haven't shown that life began or can begin spontaneously -- but *to assume it did not,* would be unscientific thinking on a scientific topic. In general, folks who buy that evolution happens are thinking scientifically; they aren't willing to make the assumption that there is more to the material world than what the sciences can address. Which is to make more assumptions than necessary to explain observations. If I have my materialist scientist hat on, sure I'm "threatened" by the suggestion that the "reduction" is not true -- because that puts me on ground I can't navigate using a scientific world view. One may find that once he goes ahead and tries on acceptance of the rather awesome idea that living matter might be only matter following physical laws, and has understood that for what it is, he may be able to see past it, to what he's really after. Then he may understand why no amount of reduction should threaten anyone's treasured ideas of meaning and truth. ______________________________________… Response to your comment: What you don't get is, the mechanism of evolution depends upon physics and chemistry being what they are. If you changed these laws, you would change the nature of the universe ... and by the way, evolution would not function any longer. Think of it this way - natural selection occurs, at the finest level, when molecules interact and material effects cascade from that. On a macro scale you get evolution of species and increasing complexity, but ultimately it all depends on physical reality. I'm not saying there's a "Driving Force" here at all -- I'm saying the opposite. It's the nature of the universe that these things happen, because they are thermodynamically favored under the laws of physics in this universe. That which is probable, or thermodynamically favored, is literally like water flowing downhill... a logical cascade of material effects. Perhaps that cascade is not entirely understood and "reduced," or totally predictable -- even completely knowable -- by science, but why should we believe there's *more* to it? There need not be a "driving force" -- to assume there need be one, is to assume more than is needed to explain what we see. The nature of the universe is what it is - and that's your driving force. You may always choose to believe it is intentional; even if you knew the laws of the universe completely and could predict the probability of every event, science will not rule that out -- but that entire issue is wholly outside the realm of science.

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” -George Greenstein "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation...His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals the intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. - Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist) "I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy....The astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world". -- Robert Jastrow (Astomomer) and former Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies “The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” - Freeman Dyson (physicist) “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” - Vera Kistiakowsky (physicist) "For the scientist who has lived his dream by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow (astronomer and physicist) "..... It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics". Stephen Hawking....American Scientist, 73, (1985).

the difficulty of reduction is why there are fields like biochemistry or physical chemistry. biochemistry can inform evolutionary biology but physical chemistry has not much to say, it's too far removed from observations by that stage. perhaps it's just because i'm a physical chemist by training, but i feel that that's where the weak link is. approximations are everywhere, it can't be helped because ab initio quantum mechanics is too computationally demanding. it's difficult enough for electronic structure, i don't know too much about it but the situation seems even worse for nuclear structure. scientists will continue trying to unite science, and if there is ever a resolution to the argument it will be found there and not by talking about it i think! on entropy - i'm sure you won't be satisfied by a mere analogy but it seems like life opposes entropy in the same way that flight opposes gravity. it doesn't contradict the law. much more here: http://www.secondlaw.com/