Do I need to put the pieces together for you? because you seem very puzzled.
Well, it would help if you didn't type the opposite of what you mean and then wonder why you're being misunderstood. It would also help if you elaborated.
Thankfully, the scientific community has already jumped on the bandwagon of emergence and complexity.
Quite a tongue in cheek compliment here, with your "thankfully" and "bandwagon".
But even the most cursory look at the history of science would show you that science has led
this idea since its very conception.
Aristotle abstracted ideas about structure, function, form, and motion by studying animals and by studying heavenly bodies.
Newton abstracted and described gravity, the first known force of nature, by studying everything from falling objects to tides to planetary orbits.
All of the early medical researchers, most famously Harvey and Vesalius, revolutionized our general understanding of human physiology by doing dissections.
Linneus and Darwin established relationships between disparate species through reductionist research, thereby creating a system to understand the whole.
In other words, ALL of the great scientific breakthroughs, and the entirety
of our scientific understanding of the physical world, comes because reductionistic findings were generalized.
So whose bandwagon, then, did science jump on? I mean it's the creationists and abortion opponents and christian scientists who have coopted reductionistic scientific language in order to increase the rhetorical power of their agendas. It's philosophy that in 2008 is clearly (and proudly) moving closer to cognitive science through empirical
research rather than rational meditation.
In other words, everyone is jumping on science's reductionistic bandwagon -- not the other way around. And it's because that reductionism gives credibility to any explanation -- and science has known this all along.