So, if scientists are successful at "creating" life, does that mean that that life came about because of "Intelligent Design"?
No. It would mean that life is such an easy step for organic chemistry that mere humans in a lab could do it. This would suggest (not prove) that -- contrary to the claims of some theolgians -- such matters do not require, much less prove, the activities of a deity.
My point is that traditionally, theologians have marveled at the existence of life, and have frequently declared that its very existence is a miracle. Evolution may have happened naturally, many of them admit, but the initial appearance of life is such an impossible thing that it must be the miraculous act of a deity.
Many science-minded folk have suggested that this kind of argument is a trap, because if life is ever created in the lab (by mere men) then the central miracle which sustains many theological systems will be in jeopardy.
Now, sensing that the "miracle" of life is soon to be created in a mundane lab by mere lab rats -- and not by gods and angels -- we can observe an almost instinctive moving of the goalposts. Now they'll demand an exact replication of the conditions on earth billions of years ago. And they'll then insist on perfect proof that those were indeed the young-earth conditions, etc. Endless objections will be raised. All of this is expected.
Every time an alleged "miracle" is demonstrated to be a natural occurence, those who require miracles will squeeze and spin and dance as much as necessary to still find something they can claim is a miracle -- that is, an event not yet explained or demonstrated.
However, even if the first time the "non-life to life" trick is done, the conditions don't mimic those on the young earth, it will nevertheless be momentous, because the trick will have been done. Without supernatural intervention. All the rest will be in the nature of mere sweeping up.
"No. It would mean that life is such an easy step for organic chemistry that mere humans in a lab could do it. This would suggest (not prove) that -- contrary to the claims of some theolgians -- such matters do not require, much less prove, the activities of a deity. "
I'll buy that. If it isn't engineered, and simple chemistry experiments can bring it about, it would suggest exactly what you said.
And your rationalization for creation ex nihlo is what? Grapefruits or multiverse ex nihlo?
Better get out your Kevlar.
Well said.
Just a side-note:
I agreed with your arguement about what would be suggested on the basis of "if."
Keep this in mind though, your entire post was on the basis of "if" and is yet unprovable. Keep that in mind next time you slam at an IDist or Creationist.
WRONG! The scientist are playing the role of the creator in the lab. The only way to prove life formed itself is to put all the compounds on a table, shut the door, and watch it grow.
You seem to want to find an objective defense of atheism in scientific reasoning. I would point out that you offer a poor example of scientific thought in your presumption of results. True scientific thought must be open to contradictory notions. That is, you must be willing to explore a hypothesis through experimentation in order to determine whether it is tue, or whether, and please stay with me here, its opposite or complement is true.
All of your arguments provide evidence of your faith in atheism. You are, in fact, engaged in a theological debate, not a scientific one. You should reconsider your position and, more impotantly, your representation of your position as scientific, when it is not.
I admit readily and happily that I am a Christian. I am also capable of scientific reasoning. I acknowledge and embrace the plain fact that, if a scientific experiment succeeds in generating life from inorganic materials, that one of the central beliefs I hold would be under attack.
However, I have to scratch my head over your assertion: "...sensing that the "miracle" of life is soon to be created..." So, what particular "senses" lead you to conclude this? What scientific basis do you offer? Don't forget it must be an objective scientific basis, not a mere assertion peppered with ad hominum attacks. I would submit it is nothing more than wishful thinking occaisioned by your faith in atheism.
What say you?
Catholic Encyclopedia -Creation
"The two general biological problems connected with the Biblical cosmogony are the origin of life and the succession of organisms. Concerning both these problems all that Catholic Faith teaches is that the beginnings of plant and animal life are due in some way to the productive power of God. Whether, with St. Augustine and St. Thomas, one hold that only the primordial elements, endowed with dispositions and powers (rationes seminales) for development, were created in the strict sense of the term, and the rest of nature — plant and animal life — was gradually evolved according to a fixed order of natural operation under the supreme guidance of the Divine Administration (Harper, "Metaphysics of the School", II, 746); or whether, with other Fathers and Doctors of the School, one hold that life and the classes of living beings — orders, families, genera, species — were each and all, or only some few, strictly and immediately created by God — whichever of these extreme views he may deem more rational and better motived, the Catholic thinker is left perfectly free by his faith to select." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm
I'm Catholic but I don't think we are alone in this view.
Mind if I steal it? ;-)
And that reminds me of an old joke (but then what doesn't):
Oscar Wilde (a very prolific producer of witty sayings) once made yet another brilliant quip, and a friend of his said in admiration, "I wish I'd said that, Oscar". To which Wilde replied, "oh, I'm sure you will..."