[js1138]

Well, for one thing, there is no such speculation because we CAN replicate chemical component processes in the lab, something that we can't quite yet manage for DNA formation and animation.

And if, in 20 or 50 years, we can, what position will you retreat to?

I might add that I've been watching this retreat since about 1970. Back then the official position of scientific creationism was that mutations are impossible because DNA always replicates perfectly. If you don't believe me, you should find a good library that archives periodicals, and look up a magazine called "The Plain Truth".

The only argument that creationsism and ID have going for them is the argument from improbality. Not exactly a rock.

[Southack]

"And if, in 20 or 50 years, we can, what position will you retreat to?"

Why would you call it a "retreat"?

If Man can create Life in the lab, it will be a great advance, not a "retreat".

The issue, however, will be whether or not we can show that Life requires intelligent intervention, or if life can be created in a certain environment without any intelligent aid.

However, this debate won't be that advanced until AFTER man can first create Life in the lab.

We aren't completely there yet, and you are jumping to too many conclusions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And before Wöhler's synthesis of urea in 1828, the claim was that "no organic molecule can be produced without life."

[MEGoody]

In your post 451, you seem to be arguing that, since ID has changed its claims, it is an invalid concept. I hope you don't mean that, because the theory of evolution has changed pretty frequently as well.