> Have to see more on this before commenting. I don't think even Moorad
> believes in vitalism, and I wouldn't say that "irreducibly complex" is
> really a metaphysical concept; Dembski claims it's falsifiable. I can't say
> I think there are any moral or religious implications worth mentioning.
> There might be misinterpretation though (like Einstein and "the theory of
> relativism"), and that should be carefully anticipated and excised.
Many of the people I have spoken with who are reluctant to say that life has
been synthesized in the lab do so because of the metaphysical ramifications
of a definition of life, so I will have to explore that at least enough to
establish that a biological definition is more practical. I do not consider
irreducible complexity to be metaphysical, but neither does it present any
opposition to the synthesis of life in the lab. I also do not intend to make
this paper a discussion of creationism vs. evolution, so there is no need to
discuss IC or intelligent design unless a critique of protocells in a
scientific journal use these concepts specifically.
Thanks for your advice; feel free to make any further comments as you think
Kevin L. O'Brien