[betty boop]

This could have been written by Ernst Mayr.

But this is a non-sequitur. Mayr thinks (or thought) biology is an "autonomous science": You don't need theory when you've got "all the facts." (But who possibly could have "all the facts?) That is, biology doesn't need to deal with physics, which makes theory preeminent in the qualification of "facts." Plus he is a reductionist (to the material). In short, he does not credit any idea of "non-phenomenal" reality. But when he has to explain non-phenomenal things -- such as emergent complexity -- he has recourse to "smart chemicals" (my phrase).

This does not satisfy; it is fraught with self-contradiction. FWIW.

[js1138]

Aside from the fact that your characterization of Mayr is completely wrong, your sentences are well written.

If you can't state your opposition's position correctly, you can't argue effectively against it.

[js1138]

But when he has to explain non-phenomenal things -- such as emergent complexity -- he has recourse to "smart chemicals" (my phrase).

Is water smarter than hydrogen or oxygen taken separately? Can the properties of water be reduced to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen studied separately?

I would rather have recourse to smart chemicals than willfully ignorant people.