Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stuart Kauffman argues that Darwinian natural selection cannot account for the spontane-
lo(>Ls in detail at
two of Kauffman
s claims: (I
an emergent property of autocatalytic sets of chemicals; and (2) that the ontogenetic development of living organisms is an emergent property of complex networks of genes. The
author suggests that there are parallels between Kauffman's ideas about
"
emergent properties"
and Bernard Lonergan 's notion of "emergent probability." He then briefly explores the different ways in which their work on the emergence of order in the universe raises religious cpiestions.
What might
While
little
that had been dominant within Roman Catholic circles. Yet Lonergan had already become aware of the untenability of this paradigm
II.
He located
want
between
Exploring
in
mean looking
From
the
some
criti-
and he made
his life's
problem of
veloping organisms, Kauffman finds this order emerging in ways that challenge the gradu-
work the search for a theological methodology that could integrate these methods. While Method in Theology (1972) remains
Lt)nergan's mature articulation of such a
theological methodology,
it
is in
large
mea-
work. Insight:
{
A Study of Human
to
Understanding
1957).
ways with Kauffman's work. To understand this convergence, one must first examine these
thinkers in the context of their respective enterprises.
be "an ex'
method of theology."
Bernard Lonergan
suit
Lonergan "s fundamental strategy in this earnot just lier work is to understand method theological method, but all determinate meth-
fessional career
in
Roman
Catholic universities.
Second Vatican Council, there has been a widespread collapse of the neoscholastic
human
subject. Thus, as
argument
in Insight,
179
Lonergan includes on the one hand an analysis of the operations which the scientist performs as a
scientist
What
is
the
that
new paradigm
or research
progrannne
in
and on
for this
I
leitmotif that
the other
"oris
hand
worldview worldview
to
it
repeatedly.^
He
convinced
that
in
and of
itself
"emergent probability." As
hope
show,
He proposes
organisms
the fol-
in particular his
understanding
[M]uch of
the order in
may
work of Kauffman.
Stuart
tigious
is
provide
not be the result of selection at all, but of the spontaneous order of self-
organized systems.''
is
Kauffman
He
argues that
is
much
1987-92), and
in
the universe
outcome of
1984 of
the Santa
ways
beginning to
is
it
is
will focus
on
his
work
as he presents
it
in
his book.
At
Home
in the
Universe:
The
ceptual
lection
framework
that
and self-organization,
which
bio-
experimental, biologist.
A tremendously cremost of
his time
the
same
time."*'
So Kauffman sees
his
framework.
tify
He proceeds by
trying to iden-
the
erties not
As with many of
the scientists
engaged
in
whole of a complex system exhibits proppossessed by any of its parts.^ Kauffman proposes to explore these "geFirst,
ent examples.
of
life
makes
be "in
ments" tend
vitro.
to
than
///
He
is
erty of
ling
egg into the adult as an emergent propcomplex networks of genes controlactivities." Finally,
one another's
he ex-
he
raises.
The work of experimental verification he leaves for others. As such, he fills one important role within the ecology of scientific
research.
plores the emergent properties of "the behavior of coevolving species in ecosystems that
and
speciation."**
The
origin of
life,
He
is
engaged
in
what philosophers
of a parascientific re-
the ontogeny of the organism, and the coevolution of linked populations: each exhibits
of science would
emergent properties
that
Kauffman believes
180
may
tion.
Autocatalytic sets as
schemes
of
as-
recurrence As I alluded
ability is that
life. He argues that life emerged complex and whole, and has remained so ever since. The linchpin for his argument is the idea that life emerges as a consequence of
origin of
to above,
The
of a "scheme of recurrence."
this has to
What relevance
Kauffman's
"autocatalytic" simply
means self-catalyzing.
become
clear in turning
want to
ity
other molecules.
If the set
Lonergan
schemes of recurrence.
up:
his
Kauffman takes
life
tions that
as a collec-
chemicals.
The
calls
is
what
"^
Kauffman
writes:
Kauffman
an "autocatalytic
set."
He
that
way
life
it
is
emerges from
to
non-life.
But
first
he pre-
tempts
life:
What
call a collectively
Alexander
Oparin's
discovery
that
is one in which the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are fomicd:
autocatalytic system
A makes
again."
B;
B makes
C;
C makes A
demonstration that
many
of the fundamental
building blocks of proteins could be synthesized abiogenically; Crick and Watson's dis-
DNA,
cause
except for "food molecules," every molecular species of which a cell is constructed is created by catalysis of
reactions, and the catalysis
cell.'^
is itself
work of DNA;
in
much
the
same way
that
nude
The
cell,
however,
is
an enormously complex
It
by these
efforts is in ac-
seems unlikely
spontaneously.
that
rences that eventually results in living organisms. In other words, life emerged simple and became complex. Kauffman has a radically different vision from these previous attempts to explain the
emerge
What Kauffman
labors to
demonstrate
lytic set
is
sufficiently high
numbers of chemicals
in suf-
181
His argument
.A will recur. Such a circular arrangement may involve any number of temis, the possibility of alternative routes, and in general any degree of
.
complexity.'^
As Kenneth Melchin
The
suggests.
DNA)
are
capable of reproduction, and that such reprocapable of Darwinian evolution through natural selection.
These argu-
sets
and Lonergan's notion of schemes of recurrence are clearly congruent with one another.
Kauffman
thinks he has
made
But while
this reflexivity
is
provides a point
model of the
origins of
life.
As I menscientific
of comparison, there
work of
more gen-
may
or
may
not
ori-
gin of living systems from nonliving collections of chemicals, but they are certainly an
schemes of recurrence
the reader
may
intriguing possibility.
The point
want
to
make does
I
Instead,
want
system, of the circulation of water over the surface of the earth, of the nitrogen cycle familiar to biologists, of the routines of animal life, of the repetitive economic rhythms of production and exchange.'^
scheme of recurrence
is
The
is
the notion
of reflexivity. Autocatalytic sets are reflexive because they are able to catalyze the very
rooted in the
first
difference
between
Kauffman's
and
"A makes
B;
B makes C; C makes
In order to
deepen
my
I
Lonergan,
recurrence
are
( 1 )
which
Lonergan
writes:
the
way
scheme of recurrence
Kauffman is asking the question: what is the in which life emerged from non-life? He
to this question.
The notion of
arose when it was noted that the diverging series of positive conditions for an event might coil around in a circle. In that case, a scries of events A, B, C,... would be so related that the fulfillment of the conditions lor each would be the occurrence of the others. Schematically, then, the scheme might be represented by the series of conditionals: If A occurs, B will occur: if B occurs, C will occur: if C occurs.
answer
(even
tific
In short, he
is
seek-
ing determinate
if
knowledge about
the world
tion to others).
is
asking a
He wants
to understand
known.
182
Lonergan's question thus has two sides to
{ 1 )
it:
is
the sort
I/2 Gt-) or
by
it
Maxwell
hand,
terms:
known through any detemiinate results of it is known heuthrough the structures of scientific
work of statistical
on the other
may
knowing? What does this mean? Lonergan's analysis of scientific knowing focuses on the cognitional
activities
provide a account of nonsystematic processes by searching for the probabilities with which events occur, while
[Sjtatisticai invesligalions
scientific
covers
is
rooted in what
to
random
differences
from those
probabilities.'^
human
are
Lonergan has in mind here 19th-century developments in thermodynamics and the kinetic theory of gases,
Modern
velopments
in
quantum
These two
ods
Lonergan
calls
them heuristic
stnictures
and answer-
complementary:
tell
ways of
[C]lassical laws
if
the unknown to the known. Just as in algebra, one names the unknown "x" in order to name its properties, to combine those
moving from
conditions were fulfilled; statistical laws tell how often conditions are
fulfilled.'^
way
of linking classical
statistical intelli-
and
events occur;
is
rooted in what he
have probabilities of
occurring;
(3)
some events
human
capacity to wonder.
mod-
are
systematically
linked to others by
classical laws;
tures in particular,
classical
clas-
and
Both
sical
and
statistical investigations
seek to un-
183
structure
probabiUty":
exhibit properties
explained by
h results from the combination of the conditioned series of schemes with their respective probabilities of emergence and survival. While by itself it is extremely
jejune,
it
understanding the parts. The complex whole, in a completely nonmystical sense, can often exhibit collective properties, 'emergent" features that are lawful in their own right.-"
potentialities
of explanation.'"
is
is
a reduction-
fundamenthe
istic
by emergent probability.
In
Kauffman's estimation,
therefore, ulto be
myriad
tiinately insufficient
and needs
comple-
Jiist as
emergent probability
is
no
man
history than
it
is
in
sence,
much
Kauffman*s notion of an autocatalytic set invites comparison with Lonergan^s notion of a scheme of recurrence, so Kauffman^s use of emergence invites comparison with emergent probability.
emeris
of the
lat-
ter half
sists
of Insight conat-
of Lonergan 's
human
history, including
Emergent probability
for
mented by an account of the whole in biological systems. For Kauffman, the order of self-organized systems is an emergent order.
Life "emerges" as a property of catalytic closure in chemical sets.
point out below,
Similarly, as
I
key idea
Lonergan. What
want
Kauffman's no-
shall
cell differentiation
As
the ontogeny of
this fun-
populations
all
damental intuition about the inadequacy of reductionism and the importance of emergence.
In his introduction to Insight, he says that part
A recurring theme
to the relationship
in
Kauffman's book
is
theme
that refers
opening chapters
to relativity
is
to high-
between the
parts
and the
is
from
In
whole.
One
the old
that
mechanism
reductionism
world:
mechanism
all
or
determinism untenable.
reductionist
Still,
not
branches
The
made
so part of the
vacuum:
How
do we use
the informa-
up
a theory of the
being"
--
is
to enable a systematic
exposure
184
Emergence
to provide
is
Lonergan
it
is
able
Emergent
way
of talk-
possible to
way
that avoids
work out
its
the universe.
One of
the implications of
Emergent probability gives Lonergan a way of talking about emergence that is precise yet highly generalized.
istic
is
a develop-
As
is
character-
is
to
Kauffman's exI
of Lonergan's
its
way
of proceeding, emer-
gence takes
image
through an insight:
topic
Kauffman takes up
in
emergent proper-
the
appropriate image: without the insight, the image is a coincidental manifold; by the insight the elements of the image
of the fertilized egg into the adult as an emergent property of complex networks of genes
controlling one another's activities." Ontogeny, or development, has
differentiation
become
intelligibly united
and
related;
moreover, accumulations of insights unify and relate ever greater and more diversified ranges of images, and what remains merely coincidental from a lower viewpoint becomes systematic from the accumulation of insights in a higher view point.-'
two
aspects:
cell
cell
human
256
different
each of which
is
specialized for a
the
example of
Somewhere on
the order of
10''*
cells are
formed through a series of 50 cell divisions. Morphogenesis refers to the organization and
coordination of this vast
functioning tissues and organs.
number of succes-
An autocatalytic set
inte-
question
is.
how
While
is
related to
intelligi-
The discovery of the gene, and later, DNA, what Kauffman calls the central dogma
Cells differ because different genes are
active in the different cell types of the
bility
of developmental biology:
Such a meaning
and
worked
Emerheavy
But
organism.-^
this leads to further questions:
gence
What is the mechanism that allows some genes to be active while others are suppressed? And how, as the zygote
cell
derstanding of emergence
is
"nonmystical,"
unfolds into the body, do the various types know which proteins to
he
is
somewhat
at a loss to
explain what he
express?'^
step,
according
to
an emergent prop-
Monod
ontogeny
is
185
second
sites
meant
utter
requisite homeostasis.
On
and complexity."
to the
is
Such a view
view
is
amenable
Darwinian
human body
is
simply the
re-
If the zygote differentiates through branching pathways to intermediate cell types that themselves branch to the final cell types of the newborn or the
will
have
to
push a
cell into a
new
new
Kauffman, as might be expected, is not satisfied with this explanation. He does not
think
it
basin of attraction (lowing to a new attractor that is, into a new develop-
is
to a
cell
togeny:
Since each of our cells houses some 10(),()()() or more genes, the state space of the human genomic regulatory system is at least 2"'"""" or lO^*''^"". As
Kauffman
is
right about
genomic networks
we have
lessly
anything
we know
about, hi terms of
way
what
is
a cell type?
operates to
The
central
dogma of developmental
biology merely states that different cell types are different patterns of activity of the same genomic system. That is not much help when the human genome affords at least 10^"""" combinations of
gene In
activity.-'
dogma,
way of
Kauffman proposes
pansions to include
Is there
whole operates
attraction a cell
method
of inquiry
to
pursue.
'^
tortions of
history).
human
Genetic
this
state
way:
...a flexible,
purely ran-
dom
linked sequence of
fashion; rather,
it
is
pulled by a rela-
tively small
number of
attractc^rs.-**
Such
dynamic and increasingly ditferentiatcd higher integrations thai meet the tension
of successively transfomied underlying
186
Development consists of a
manifolds, but
ing,
if
series of higher
perfomiance of
development
is static
is
to be
ongo-
falsifi-
higher integration
when
the lower
manifold
is
finality
want
is
in
sis
is
as a popularization of a
it
body of scien-
ther differentiation.
But according to
is
tific
dy-
new
inte-
may
not offer
still
much
in the
way of "hard
sci-
Lonergan
ence,"
dissatisfaction with
what he takes
to be the
own
replacement by a more
As an op-
Kauffman
sees nihil-
seems
likely that
an organism might
ism
at the heart
of Darwinian evolution:
play
at least a
which developmental pathway a cell might follow. The developing organism is thus the ongoing linked series of increasingly differentiated integrations.
I
Science has left us as unaccountably improbable accidents against the cold, immense backdrop of space and time.^''
Not
that
Kauffman
is
about to embrace
Traditional reli-
institutionalized religion.
that
hope
have shown
Lonergan's ex-
gious belief he considers a non-option: "Paradise has been lost, not to sin, but to science."
^^
rise
of science means
Yet he holds
wrest from
the
demise of religious
belief.
can
still
is
here,
between
we
are, in
ways we do not
yet see,
As
Kauffman has so
work of
It
experientirely
is
Kauffman's
energy coupled together in nonequilibrium systems, if life in its abundance were bound to arise, not as an incalculably improbable accident, but as an expected rulfillment of the
natural order, then
in the universe.
^^
The point
want
to
em-
we
truly are at
home
phasize here
is
of Lonergan's
the cor-
The phrases "at home in the universe" and "we the expected" rather than "we the improbable" echo throughout the book, and lend
Because
187
of
its
urgency.
odology
of
Scientific
In Criticism
Lonergan finished writing Insight in 1953, the same year Watson and Crick's paper on the double helix structure of DNA was published. In light of this, the applicability of
Programmes."
of Knowledge, ed. by Imre Lakatos and A. Musgrave, 91-1 96. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1970.
Lonergan 's ideas on genetic method is nothing short of astonishing. Lonergan, I have
suggested, would find
much
is
in
Kauffman's
final pjirallel
one
wish
to draw,
no
Melchin, Kenneth R.
History, Ethics
and
dynamism towards ever fuller realization of being." ^^ But while Kauffman limits his
search for the sacred to the universe accessible to the empirical sciences
Emergent Probability: Ethics, Society and History in the Work of Bernard Lonergan.
(what Lonergan
for the unre-
would
ate being),
Lonergan allows
stricted desire to
know
Endnotes:
1.
there
some-
Lonergan,
A Second Collection,
p.
268.
And
to raise that
2.
See Kuhn.
question
for
is
3.
See Lakatos.
at the level
Roughly speaking,
that
God.
Kauffman operates
of formulating insights,
While
this
remark
invites a
comparison of
Works
from
cited:
Byrne, Patrick H.
"God and
the Statistical
4.
Kauffman, At
Home
in the
Universe, pp.
Universe."
(December
Self-
71-95 passim.
5. Ibid., p. 25.
1981): 345-63^
Kauffman,
Stuart.
Evohition.
Press, 1993.
The Search
Com-
9. Ibid., ch. 3.
Kuhn, Thomas.
The Structure of
Scientific
See figure
3.1 (p.
49) and
188
13.
Lonergan,
Melchin,
///.v/g/zr, p.
141.
L.
14. 15.
16.
p. 105.
2001): 100-101.
28. For an introduction to attractors and
attractor basins, see
Lonergan,
Byrne,
p.
loc. cit.
349.
Chaos: Making a
1
New
18.
Lonergan, op.
131.
19ff.
Kauffman, op.
cit., p.
20.
Kauffman, op.
pp. vii-viii.
15.
Patrick
cit., p.
1999.
cit., p.
Kauffman, op.
95.
cit., p.
The
recently completed
34.
Kauffman, op.
cit., p. vii.
sequence of the human genome puts the number of genes closer to 30,000, but Kauffman's
point remains valid.
477.
Grant Miller Francisco is currently in his fourth year of doctoral studies in the Department of Theology at Boston College. His area of specialization is systematic theology, with an
emphasis in theology and science. Originally from Portland, Oregon, he received his bachelor's degree in religion from Reed College, and an M.A. in theology from the Earlham School of Religion. He now lives in Newton and attends St. Paul's Episcopal Church
there.
This paper was presented on 27 April 2000 at Boston University for the Science and Religion Colloquium, an annual event sponsored jointly by the New England Center for Faith and Science Exchange and the Boston Theological Institute.
189