Creationist question:
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 theologians -- such matters do not require 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 one of the central miracles which sustain many theological systems will be in jeopardy. The problem lies in relying on physical phenomena to justify faith.
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 exact 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 occurrence, 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.
The question of our own consciousnesses or minds being natural or supernatural themselves is one of the questions left behind due to lack of interest.
An elegant statement, for "faith" is exactly that...a belief without physical evidence. And those who require physical evidence to justify their belief in a Deity are on very shaky ground. I believe Jesus said something to that effect to Thomas after the Resurrection (and yes, I know the passage...I'm just wondering if others are aware of it).
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early earth: Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?, PatrickHenry wrote:
" Every time an alleged "miracle" is demonstrated to be a natural occurrence, 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."
Which is sad, because of course the entire history and development of life on Earth _is_ a miracle, and a far more profound one than some old guy in a nightshirt waving a magic wand in 4004 BCE.
The billions of years the Earth has existed and the slow progression from inanimate molecules to people capable of arguing about it is a far more persuasive proof of the existence of a deity than any amount of bogus "answers in Genesis" nitpicks at the fossil record. I'm an atheist myself, but when I can wrap my mind around the scale of Earth's history I feel tremendous awe.
Dont't hold your breath. Or at least blow circular smoke clouds.