Vitalism?

The thread was getting kind of long, so I thought I would split this off:

sraj wrote
> Also, I feel there is a basic issue with our sciences. Our world can
> be divided into two:

>The living part / the non-living part

> We excel in the sciences dealing with the non-living part. And most
> of our sciences dealing with the living part, view the living part as
> if it were non-living. There is a huge knowledge gap in our sciences!

Molecular biology seems to me like a grand success. Are you really saying we need to revert to vitalism somehow?

We have a long way to go before we can make connections from molecular biology to neurology to psychology to economics, the way we can from quantum mechanics to chemistry to molecular and cellular biology to physiology. But the problem isn't living vs non-living. We have the same problem going from planetary orbits to the formation of solar systems out of dust and gas, or from the physics of gases and water to the interaction of weather and climate.