But assuming that biological theory exists, does it therefore follow that theoretical biology is a distinct and legitimate subject? My guess is that there is less agreement on this proposal; there may even be virulent opposition to it. One of the most common arguments against it is that living systems are so prodigal, so unpredictable and, above all, so historical that any attempt at a grand theoretical framework is doomed to failure. The shape of a leaf in a forest is the product of so many chance events, not only during its growth but also in the aimless blundering of its evolution, that it is inconceivable that it could be predicted from first principles. An all-encompassing theory of biology is no more possible than a predictive theory of other large, inchoate systems, such as the weather, the stock market or London's Heathrow Airport.

Moreover, the argument goes, even in cases in which laws and patterns have been observed in living systems — as in zebra stripes, Hodgkin–Huxley equations and protein coiled-coils — these are not truly biological laws. They belong to mathematics, chemistry or physics, and reflect what living systems have in common with the non-living world, not their own unique biological characteristics.

Enjoying our latest content?
Log in or create an account to continue

  • Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team
  • Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research
Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account
Continue with Google
Continue with ORCiD