David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 7 (4):431-451 (1992)
An increasing number of biologists are expressing discontent with the prevailing theory of neo-Darwinism. In particular, the tendency of neo-Darwinians to adopt genetic determinism and atomistic notions of both genes and organisms is seen as grossly unfair to the body of developmental theory. One faction of dissenteers, the Process Structuralists, take their inspiration from the rational morphologists who preceded Darwin. These neo-rationalists argue that a mature biology must possess universal laws and that these generative laws should be sought within organismal development. Such a rational biology will only be possible once the neo-Darwinian paradigm, with its reliance on inherently stochastic processes, is overthrown.To facilitate this revolution, process structuralism launches a broad attack on the theoritical adequacy of its opponent. It is charged that neo-Darwinism is untestable and therefore its hypotheses are nothing more than adaptive stories. Further, the lamentable tendencies toward genetic determinism and atomism by modern biologists is seen as the inescapable consequences of adopting the neo-Darwinian outlook.
|Keywords||Darwinism epigenetic genetic genotype phenotype rationalism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
H. F. Nijhout (1990). Problems And Paradigms: Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development. Bioessays 12 (9):441-446.
Wesley Salmon (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press.
Israel Scheffler (1963/1971). The Anatomy of Inquiry. Indianapolis,Bobbs-Merrill.
Citations of this work BETA
Marta Linde Medina (2010). Two “EvoDevos”. Biological Theory 5 (1):7-11.
C. A. Hooker (1994). Regulatory Constructivism: On the Relation Between Evolutionary Epistemology and Piaget's Genetic Epistemology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (2):197-244.
Cor Weele (1993). Explaining Embryological Development: Should Integration Be the Goal? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):385-397.
Similar books and articles
N. Laland Kevin, Marcus John Odling-Smee & Jeremy Kendal W. Feldman (2009). Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology. Foundations of Science 14 (3).
Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman & Jeremy Kendal (2009). Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology. Foundations of Science 14 (3):195-216.
R. J. Berry (1982). Neo-Darwinism. E. Arnold.
Davide Vecchi (2012). Taking Biology Seriously : Neo-Darwinism and its Many Challenges. In Martin H. Brinkworth & Friedel Weinert (eds.), Evolution 2.0: Implications of Darwinism in Philosophy and the Social and Natural Sciences. Springer.
James H. Fetzer (2011). Evolution and Atheism: Has Griffin Reconciled Science and Religion? Synthese 178 (2):381 - 396.
Alan Haworth (2001). Genes and Citizens: Can Moral Philosophy Learn From Evolutionary Biology? Res Publica 7 (2):137-157.
Cor Weele (1993). Metaphors and the Privileging of Causes. Acta Biotheoretica 41 (4).
Elias L. Khalil & Alain Marciano (2010). The Equivalence of Neo-Darwinism and Walrasian Equilibrium: In Defense of Organismus Economicus. Biology and Philosophy 25 (2):229-248.
David Resnik (1994). The Rebirth of Rational Morphology. Acta Biotheoretica 42 (1):1-14.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #96,624 of 1,696,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #333,740 of 1,696,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?