Quote:The scientific community has accepted the fact that abiogenesis in its old form has been debunked. They have moved on to what they term the 'modern hypothesis of abiogenesis,' in which life emerged only once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
Yes, science scrapped spontaneous generation in favor of heredity. We found out that fully-formed, relatively complex organisms like insects and modern-day microbes DON'T just appear from nothing. Like I said, this view is archaic - these are the guys with wooden wings strapped to their arms trying to fly. Pointing at them and saying "haha, science got it wrong!" is just the same as pointing at alchemy and saying chemistry is useless; it's irrelevant because they were so ill-informed back then.
Quote:The point is science is no longer trying to replicate abiogenesis in its old form. Craig Venter et al. are trying to create artificial life, which is different from abiogenesis, in which life emerged from inanimate matter.
Yes, it would be different from the theory of abiogenesis - which addresses how life on earth started - in that the processes behind creating artificial life would not be the same as those when life naturally arises. One requires evolution, the other requires a creator (us). However, the end product is functionally the same: a single-celled organism capable of replication and evolution.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that you would not consider artificial life as life?
