What life "is" is important to creationists because they want to claim that anything that can self-assemble from simple chemicals isn't life. It isn't very important to scientists because they're interested in both living and non-living chemicals.Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
Part of science is to provide a description of reality and, in my opinion, Life is a fundamental feature of reality, particularly when discussing something like evolution. To suggest that trying to define Life is outside the arena of science seems preposterous to me and I find it truly shocking that there seems to be no scientific consensus on what Life is but it is understandable.
There's a difference between "description" and "definition"."It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
Part of the description of reality must include, imo, Life. But what is the definition of Life.
Certainly, a description of reality should include a description of life - but what does a description of life have to do with a definition of life? An artist can describe life without defining it. Why not a scientist?"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
I have not asked for a description of Life, I have asked for a definition - what thoughts do you have regarding this.
You said that "part of science is to provide a description of reality". I'm asking what that has to do with a definition. My thought is that science can putter along quite nicely without a definition of life.
Don't you think it should be possible?
Definitions, by definition, are vague. "Meaning" is necessarily subjective. It's possible to have a thousand different definitions of life. It isn't possible to agree on one."It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
It is the designer or owner who decides the definition of their house. That doesn't mean it cannot be defined.
Where you're going wrong is in assuming that there's only one definition. The designer and owner may or may not have the same definition. The designer may define it as a house as soon as the drawings are complete. The owners may be showing people "their house" when it's just a foundation and a pile of lumber. The city government has its own definition - it's a house when it meets all of the building codes and becomes taxable.
It's naive to pretend that one definition will work in all situations.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
Why are there still single cell organisms? Why haven't they evolved into more complex organisms?
Single-celled organisms are doing quite well as they are. They're the major serious biological threat to mankind. Why would they change?
Some of the first shelters were made of tree branches. Our houses today are considerably more complex, yet we still use a simple stick to hold up a flag. By your logic, a flagpole should have thousands of parts.
"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"