Evidence for God from Science

Well, I did it. I fell into the temptation to respond to a giant Facebook argument chain. I'll repent and try harder next time.

I was trolling scrolling through a post on the Mythbusters Facebook page (here: https://www.facebook.com/MythBusters/po ... 5139143224) regarding the search for distant planets that might be able to sustain life. The topic is usually interesting on its own merits, but it was the wording the that caught my attention: "This alien planet could have the kind of chemistry that brews life!" [emphasis added].

Needless to say, I expected some kick back on this in the comment section. Sure enough, a squabble had erupted about abiogenesis. Now, when I'm on Facebook, I try not to get involved unless I can significantly contribute without posting a novel (I save that for the G&S forums ). But somebody referred to an accomplishment made back in 2010 regarding the creation of a "synthetic cell" (here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014 ... 0152341984 ).

Initially, I was taken back. In the moment, I simply posted something like "That's an interesting article. But it's hard to argue against intelligent design by posting an example of intelligent design."

As I read more about it, I discovered that this wasn't simply a cell made from scratch. It's interesting, though I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm certainly no expert in the area. I like to consider myself a decently less-than-totally-clueless apologist; but I'm no specialist in the area of microbiology. So, that said:

What do you fine people have to say about it?
What kind of repercussions does this have on ID, if any?

Interesting reading, like

To make the synthetic cell, a team of 25 researchers at labs in Rockville, Md., and San Diego, led by bioengineer Daniel Gibson and Mr. Venter, essentially turned computer code into a new life form. They started with a species of bacteria called Mycoplasma capricolum and, by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves, turned it into a customized variant of a second existing species, called Mycoplasma mycoides, they reported.

Am not biologist, so I do not know whether cell could program itself through evolution.
But it is pretty intelligent stuff that living organisms have 'code' as their bases.

When humans can create life OR cause life to evolve by direct action, like the above, it means that life COULD have been created/caused to evolve by another sentient being.
Get where I am going with this?

PaulSacramento wrote:When humans can create life OR cause life to evolve by direct action, like the above, it means that life COULD have been created/caused to evolve by another sentient being.
Get where I am going with this?

Directed Panspermia?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When humans can create life OR cause life to evolve by direct action, like the above, it means that life COULD have been created/caused to evolve by another sentient being.
Get where I am going with this?

Directed Panspermia?

Evidence that life on this planet COULD have been caused by something or someone.

The moment humans can either create life or cause life to go from A to B by direct action on our part, it proves that life could have come to be by outside action, intelligent outside action.
One step closer to proving that God exists.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When humans can create life OR cause life to evolve by direct action, like the above, it means that life COULD have been created/caused to evolve by another sentient being.
Get where I am going with this?

Directed Panspermia?

Evidence that life on this planet COULD have been caused by something or someone.

The moment humans can either create life or cause life to go from A to B by direct action on our part, it proves that life could have come to be by outside action, intelligent outside action.
One step closer to proving that God exists.

OR, direct panspermia.

So, I guess we are getting close to our biggest dream, our biggest WANT, our biggest VANITY:
To be like God.

Which brings us to the question that should be asked and should have been asked over the centuries and that would have avoided so much of the crap we have now:

Just because we can, does it mean we should?

...living organisms have 'code' as their bases.

I'm guessing a lot of you know of Stephen C. Meyer. That's exactly what he discusses in his book Signature in the Cell: the role of digital code in a DNA. His overarching point is that the code found in DNA has so many characteristics of having intelligent-origin that no Blind Watchmaker could have started or maintained it. That said, it's interesting that the researchers had to carry out the project

by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves

If anything, it's more reaffirming of ID than it is threatening. The more I learn about this synthetic cell, the less it strikes me as threatening.

Cloud wrote:

...living organisms have 'code' as their bases.

I'm guessing a lot of you know of Stephen C. Meyer. That's exactly what he discusses in his book Signature in the Cell: the role of digital code in a DNA. His overarching point is that the code found in DNA has so many characteristics of having intelligent-origin that no Blind Watchmaker could have started or maintained it. That said, it's interesting that the researchers had to carry out the project

by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves

If anything, it's more reaffirming of ID than it is threatening. The more I learn about this synthetic cell, the less it strikes me as threatening.

Cloud here is a part of an excellent video by Stephen Meyer and this video series by Meyet was on eog the major reasons for my conversion from theistic evolution to intelligent design
Pay special attention to minutes 3 through 8
This was my aha moment
I remember taking a break from watching my favorite DVD at the time called walking with monsters about animals from the Cambrian, Carboniferous and Permian period and seeing Meyers presentation for the first time .
http://youtu.be/yLeWh8Df3k8

Cloud wrote:

...living organisms have 'code' as their bases.

I'm guessing a lot of you know of Stephen C. Meyer. That's exactly what he discusses in his book Signature in the Cell: the role of digital code in a DNA. His overarching point is that the code found in DNA has so many characteristics of having intelligent-origin that no Blind Watchmaker could have started or maintained it. That said, it's interesting that the researchers had to carry out the project

by replacing its genome with one they wrote themselves

If anything, it's more reaffirming of ID than it is threatening. The more I learn about this synthetic cell, the less it strikes me as threatening.

Not sure if you can use this to lend credibility to intelligent design as a WHOLE, more like we can use this to disprove that life was purely random and by chance ONLY.
Personally I believe God DESIGNED life BUT that part of the design is its ability to adapt and overcome and evolve.

I mean, there isn't really anything difficult or special about creating a cell. Everything that is living has cells, bacteria, viruses, even fungi. I'm not surprised they did it and I'm excited at the possibilities for medical advances. I look at all of it as just tools god gave us.