This paper at first makes a comparative study of the two different paradigms of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Western medicine. The author holds that there are four essential differences between the two paradigms: the theory of Yin and Yang as well as five phases vs. modern natural science, experienced "black box" vs. objective anatomy, overall synthesis vs. concrete analysis, and "thought experiment" vs. scientific experiment. Next, from a dynamic view of theoretic development, the author deeply discusses TCM's defensive method, which influenced upon its evolution. This paper concludes that TCM will go on enlightening modern medicine with its traditional experiences and thinking methods; yet as a research programme which lacks evolutionary capacity, it will meet more challenges of Western medicine.

What I mean here is not that the two kinds of research programmes' positions and trends are the same. As the defensive method of Western medicine and TCM above mentioned, the two rivals are not equal, for one--Western Medicine--is evolutionary while the other devolutionary. According to rapid advances of modern and systemic sciences, the room in which TCM could play ith its unique theory is diminishing. It could not be denied that TCM may go on enlightening modern medicine with its tranditional experiences and thinking methods in some degree, yet as an integrated research programme, it evidently lacks evolutionary capacity. If TCM should not seek a significant sence of revolution it woud recoil from more challenges from the development of Western medicine, and would be facing research programme's disintegration in the future, which we never hope.