Bill wrote: > To the contrary, I think Torrance is saying that if > it is personhood we are attempting to understand, > i.e., the unborn child, the topic of his discussion, > DNA cannot explain it, no matter how successful we are at reducing it; because "it is yet incomplete > and indeterminate in itself, and is thus not > explainable in terms of its components." There is > much reading to do before you are going to be ready > to assume things about Torrance. ... Please either > read him more or take my word on it.
I'm working on catching up to speed with Torrance, and I appreciate you bringing him to my attention concerning my studies. Nevertheless, what you are saying here and what I quoted Torrance as saying in that post are two different things. Let me say that I agree with what you just wrote. Identical twins, in my opinion, prove what you just said. If genetics alone accounts for a person's personality and personhood, then identical twins would be identical in respect to their personalities. They are not. My identical twin and myself, we are two different persons and have been since birth. My mother tells me that she has always recognized since our earliest age distinct differences in our personalities. Of course, my earliest memories reveal a great deal of differences between us also. So I agree that a person is more than the sum of his or her molecular parts, and that is why I believe in a soul and spirit unlike most other scientists. Torrance wrote the following: > Let me repeat here what I have written elsewhere > in The Soul and Person of the Unborn Child. However > wonderful and complicated the DNA may be, it cannot > of itself account for the enormously greater complexity > of the many parts of one's physical body. Notice that he is clearly speaking of one's PHYSICAL BODY. I maintain like most other scientists that the physical body is very much accountable by DNA. Bill wrote: > ... the thing about the spirit gene and the soul gene, > was a joke, ha ha, get it(?), our way of saying there > is more to personhood than the sum of its parts. > Reductionism does not work, not even in science. > Do you not admit the same each time you resort to > "emergent properties" to explain that which is > scientifically inexplicable? No, I do not refer to emergent properties to explain that which is inexplicable. I am simply saying that I recognize that synergism between components might produce properties which are not fully predictable by studying the components themselves in isolation. This does not mean that reductionism does not work. It means that reductionism is limited. We need both reductionism and holism in research, and any system that excludes the other is going to miss the mark in many ways. We ought to study both the individual trees and the forest as a whole and not claim that only one way to study the forest is the right way and only way. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
