Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists

Hi LauraG and welcome to EvCThe effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none. The building blocks are there and it's that fact that needs to be addressed. Analysing an existing thing and being able to modify it and make other things or even copies of it is not creating anything.If what is happening says anything, it is this: that which constitutes life is a very complicated thing. And it takes the full powers of a lot of very intelligent people working over many years - just to be able to make copies of it.It may in fact add to the creationists argument which holds that if the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and other bits and pieces using existing building blocks, then to believe that blind chance came up with the original is farther-fetched than once thought.For science to be able to objectively eject the need for a creator, only one thing is required:Design an experiment in which a self-replicating entity is formed out of an unknown mixture of chemicals and conditions in a completely undirected way. The experiment could be a stepped one where discrete stages on the way to the the life form are inserted into the next step of the experiment.Given that 'undirected' and 'unknown chemicals and conditions' form such central elements, it is unlikely that any such experiment will succeed. Assumptions as to what was sloshing around in Darwins 'warm pond' and assumptions as to athmospheric conditions at the time are just that - assumptions. Assumptions means the experiment is being directed by intelligence. Which is not how abiogenesists see it. The creationist, I suggest, can rest easily in the knowledge that science will never be able to formally eject God from the equation

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

Reasonable theory? I'm not debunking science here (which I think is a fantasitic enterprise) but when it comes to abiogenesis, what we have are unfounded assumptions about what was happening then. That isn't science, it is science fiction. A viable theory cannot be based on presumptions which can never be tested. Science should not assign unknown things to God. That is not it's remit. But neither should it comment on God on way or the other. That too is outside it's remit. Science is a narrowly defined entity. It can only attempt to explain the natural. It must remain silent on anything else. It must not, when it reaches limits pre-suppose that a natural cause will be found although it may look - otherwise it becomes a Religion. What it can say is "We do not know yet"

Science is great I agree. But it cannot comment on anything outside the boundaries it sets itself. Typically: objective, observable, experimental explaination of the natural. Period. (Not that it doesn't speculate wildly at times)What is the reason whereby we should believe objective is all there is. It might be a well founded theory but a theory is not truth. What reason have we to think that natural and objective are all there is (a reason that doesn't rely on circular reasoning I mean)If supernatural, then science cannot measure it or observe it. It must be silent on things which may lie outside its self-imposed boundaries.

Lets presuppose God exists. Now supposing science managed to make a human. The first problem is to show that God couldn't have had a hand in it. This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that God already created. The scientist would be doing no more that he does at a grosser level with IVF. Science would have to make up a totally new form of life which didn't involve the design used by God: cells, DNA etc.Thus Science cannot, of itself, make a human. Thus the problem never needs to arise.

God of the Gaps ...hmmmLets see if Atheistic Science can create it's very own lifeform out of inanimate matter. Then we'll be able to compare God-of-the-gaps and the God-of-Science. And no copying mind. Copying and using Gods ideas such as RNA and proteins and amino acids is eazi-peezi-lemon-squeezi. Let them think up their very own life form - improve on this accidental jumble. It's original art we want to see - not some old low grade forgery....God of the Gaps indeed - except it's a very, very big gap. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you though

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

I think they may be worrying about the downside:atom bombs
anthrax
global warming
obesity
cancer
intensive farming
deforestation
thalydamide
over consumption of world resource etc, etc, etc, etc,I think they may be worried about what has happened every time a Pandoras box is opened by science. What happens is not always the fault of scientists (although the victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Zyklon B cannot be sepatated from the scientists whose goal was to kill them) but once opened the box has proved impossible to close again

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

I'm sure there are too. And I'm pretty sure given enough intelligence/time/money applied that they may very well succeed. The only problem is that abiogenesis requires no intelligent input. Chance, blind chance is how it had to happen. No one knows what conditions existed then - nor will they ever. Whatever 'chance' conditions scientists use in their experiments to create say, a piece of self-replicating RNA - they are 'chance' conditions designed by what intelligence finds it needs to create this life.I can see the headlines now "We have abiogenesised life under X-conditions. Thus X were the conditions that existed then!!" And said without a trace of irony too I'll warrant. Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Mark my words this is how it will happen Science does what science does and it should not worry about who it threads on. It must be blind and it must be impartial. It goes whereever it's journey takes it. I wish it well. Before Science, man was at the hub of a wheel and knew nothing except "Goddidit". There was nothing else to explain it. Since then, Science has ventured out from the hub along many spokes - only to find (so far) that every spoke ends up joined to a single rim to which every other spoke appears to attached. And at the rim: mystery, silence, no explanation. (eg: first cause, abiogenesis unprovable). At these nodal points, the non-humble elements within the body Science depart from good, sound methodology: experiment, observation, evidence - and enters the realm of poorly supported theory. They speculate and dress it up as science (see: Headlines above). This however is not science, it is science fiction.God is the rim of the wheel. Everything inside the wheel is created by him. Science has just proved to be a fantastic way to find out more about how Goddidit. I can't wait for the next installment myself

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

See post 26 for what constitutes 'new life'. I think I am being fair too. If science does this, then I'll not only reevaluate belief. I'll eat my hat.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Not at all. But the point I was responding to was that "Creationist just jump up and down about science playing God". I was trying to point out that there may be other good reasons not want investigation in certain areas. Do you think the ability to impart intelligence, beauty, strength to ones offspring would be a beneficial thing to apply science to (imagine it had been already possible in your parents time and suppose that they couldn't afford to do it for you. Fancy the idea of not being able to get into the field you want because a lot of genetically enhanced beings beat you to it? Think it can be prevented from happening?) Science has many downsides. That's all I'm saying. It opens boxes and for every box it does monsters as well as angels come crawling out. Nothing to be done - but lets no over romanticise it. 2/3 of the world is in poverty. Science is great for the ubermensch to whom it is applied. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. They all led rabidly atheistic regiemes and they killed many more people in a few short years than religion has done in total since the dawn of time. Lets get a sense of perspective here. And lets not forget either that Religion has nothing at all to do with God. Man makes Religion, not God I think your misunderstanding me here. I'm not anti-science. I'm anti-people hijacking science and making a god of it.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Creationists say God exists but the evidence isn't physically tangible. You'd possibly say he doesn't exist because the evidence isn't physically tangible. Presupposing he does exist is the same as presupposing he doesn't. It's not circular. It stalemate.Irrespective of whether God exists or not. Science, in manipulatiing pre-existing building blocks of existing life to modify life or make other forms of life aren't creating anything. They are just using a knowledge of life to do something else with. It may be a big deal in terms of usefulness for mankind (which is fine) but it doesn't minimise God (if he exists). It says nothing about him at all.Which is fine. Except some will see it as closing the gaps that God could fill - which it won't

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

[/qs]Rephrasing alters the issue not one iota Yaro. The point remains the same. Scientists manipulating pre-existing building blocks to do something else says nothing about where those blocks came from. Nothing at all...

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Afraid not. Dig a little deeper (say Mein Kampf) and you will find Hiters ideas of an Ubermensch was a direct cut and paste from Nietszches ideas. Nietszche was an out and out athiest who felt that evolution and survival of the fittest should be given a helping hand. He was disgusted with the idea of compassion. His protoge Hitler, killed gypsies, jews, homosexuals, the mentally retarded - anyone in fact who he considered could infect the genepool. What were all the 'medical' experiments aimed at doing if not to assist in the programme? It would be helpful if you could make some connection between Religion and God though. Like, point out what man does in the name of God has to do with God.

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

I've got all the evidence in the world.God is patently supernatural thus evidence won't be found in the natural. Science can only look at the natural and isn't designed to look anywhere else. If you decide that your going to limit the evidence only to that which is physical then it's not surprising that physical is all you see Circular: "Objective is all there is (presumption) thus objective is all there is (conclusion)

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

Man makes religion not God. There is no gap to flee from. Man can make a religion from anything. Even Science has been turned into one by some. "Science will explain everything" (even though there is no basis for that statement: past performance is no indication of the future results). Blind faith that Science can do anything of the sort, is religion.And why not use God to make religions too. Call it Identity Theft if you like

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14

At least the point made is now established (by your use of the word 'neither'). Which returns us to Laura's OP. Science manipulating existing life to create 'humans' will do nothing to affect the position of Creationist.Checkmate?

---

"But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with - they just don't make sense to him" 1 Corinthians 2:14