Replies

In post 74 you state:

“there’s no difference between life and non-life physically/materially.”

In post 92 you agree with my questions:

“Who says that physically/materially is all there is? Not me.”

There is a huge difference between life and non-life.

That the difference is not physical or material as you claim, for example it’s atoms or quarks or whatever all the way down, seems irrelevant. It’s like looking at a black car and a black tennis racket and saying “There is no difference in color. Science says they are both black.” So what?

Again, there is a huge difference between life and non-life. So what is that difference?

One answer that is readily apparent is “knowledge.” A watchmaker uses his knowledge to design and build a watch. Knowledge goes into a steam engine. Economists refer to this as embodied technology, in distinction to the disembodied technology found double-entry bookkeeping, etc.

Knowledge is embodied in animals and plants. Under the microscope cells embody knowledge. Decades ago, it was credibly claimed that a cell was more complex than a nuclear-powered submarine - the most complex object made by man. As knowledge of the cell has advanced, the difference in complexity has increased.

The cell is astronomically more complex than the protoplasm that Darwin imagined. There is a huge amount of knowledge embedded in the cell. There is no credible natural explanation for abiogenesis. Evolution from first cells to the variety of life about us is also unlikely.