Verified answer

They can't, so it's a moot point

Kp

There are many flaws here in your premises. 1) Amino acids, the building blocks of DNA, have in fact been created from non-living matter. 2) We wouldn't expect to see a fully-functioning living organism come directly out of non-organic matter in one step. We know that nature doesn't work like that. The amino acids would become DNA, out of which some would be self-replicating, out of which some would have proteins, etc. all the way up to a single-celled organism. There's a continuum of stages in between, and to ask where life begins begs the question of what you define a living organism to be. It's not a precise line to draw. For example, viruses have DNA and are self-replicating but are not considered "organisms". 3) The lack of direct observation of something does not mean that it's all taken on "faith". Sometimes knowledge can be indirect. You can INFER things based on other observations. That's not "faith". 4) You don't have to accept a premise to begin with, whether it's by observation, inference, OR faith. I haven't seen unicorns, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their existence on faith. I can reject the whole notion all together. 5) A position of faith still isn't necessarily "a religious position". You need more than mere faith to label something a "religious" position. Otherwise, your argument implies that everything that isn't directly observed is a religious position, and if you're going to call my acceptance of the planet Neptune a "religious" position, then term loses all practical meaning.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't. Because they're only recreating the original conditions that arose on Earth at that time. And since those conditions are explained through naturalistic means, ie solar system and planetary formation, your assertion fails miserably.

Dewcoons: You sorta messed up the punchline there by leaving it unclear. God is meant to say, "Oh no, that's MY matter. Make your own." And of course, it doesn't take into account the lack of evidence for God's existence in the first place, but that's another argument altogether. But at least please try and get the punchline correct.

Consider the following:

I wish to prove that gravity acts of apples, so I hold an apple in the air and drop it - the apple falls. YOUR CONCLUSION: all apples that fall are dropped by people.

It's bad logic.

Scientists wish to prove that the right conditions can cause life to come into existance, so they perform an experiment. If that experiment works, it does NOT prove that an intelligence is required for life at all, its the same bad logic as my point above.

EDIT:

Sorry ron, didn't notice your post, mine is spookily similar

No, it would only prove that it is capable of creating life under the conditions that they (the scientists) created it.

In fact, if such conditions were present for another reason, then life could occur - no intelligence implied really.

No. Experiments imitate existing situations. If I drop a ball from my window, does that mean that intelligence is required for gravity to operate?

That would depend on whether they did something that could occur naturally (for example mixing naturally occuring gasses/liquids in appropriate proportions and exposing it to UV rays from the sun) or something that couldn't occur naturally (for example exposing a substance at a temperature near absolute zero to radiation that doesn't occur naturally).

The former would demonstrate that life could occur naturally given the right set of circumstances.

If I'm able to squeeze some carbon into a diamond with a big ol' clamp, does it prove intelligence is required to create diamonds?

No.

It would require great intelligence and analytical mind of these scientists, to conduct such test

No.

If I can explain to you how rainbows are naturally formed and demonstrate using a garden hose, does it mean intelligence is required to create rainbows?

My pastor told this one the other day:

A group of scientist announced that they had created life. They were surprised to get a note from God asking them to demonstrate the technique for him. And he promised to demo his technique for them.

So a week later God meet them at their lab, and spend a few minutes getting a full tour. The scientist then ask God what he would need to create life. God said, "This will do", picked up a little dust from the floor, blow on it, and a human emerged.

"Your turn", he told the scientist. So they started their machines, mixed their chemicals, adjusted their settings, and after several hours of work, managed to produce some living one-celled animals.

"Impressive", said God. "Now. lets see you do with your chemicals this time...."