Science_ a collection of successful recipes ?

Originally posted by JS357
You say:

"...Why has Science not been able to unlock the key to the difference between being a live being and a dead being and use that key to at least prepare an Algorithm or a line of action to create a monocellular live being in a laboratory ?

"Science" in this case means well-funded scientists. If and when there is funding, the investigations will p apply to inquiries on subjects that are posited to lie outside the scope of science?

On your first point, Vetner seems to be on track to do that, partially there now:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/05/20/did-craig-venter-just-create-synthetic-life-the-jury-is-decidedly-out/

I think it is amazing he has gotten this far. Can it be that long till we develop what we have to consider the creation of fully artificial life?

And, given that, to develop alternate methods of information storage and transcription besides DNA, like maybe a triple helix or box (quad) helix structure that does all the jobs of our form of DNA?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
But Replication is not Creation.

So what is creation? What are you looking for, a new life form? If so why? If you just wan't scientists to start with inorganic compounds, but end with what is identical to current life forms, then surely that is replication too?

Why has Science not been able to unlock the key to the difference between being a live being and a dead being...
Who says they haven't? I say they have. In fact, I say it is pretty obvious - yet at the same time somewhat complex. Basically we have three states:
1. Non-living matter.
2. Living things - which are basically highly complex chemical reaction chains that are self replicating.
3. Dead things - which are former living things that are no longer likely to continue self replicating. Note that this does not quite mean that they will not self replicate in future, and it is very much a grey area as to where one classifies something.

and use that key to at least prepare an Algorithm or a line of action to create a monocellular live being in a laboratory ?
I think they already have, and I think you know this, hence you wish to avoid admitting as such by giving overly restrictive conditions (must use inorganic compounds).

Forget the starting point of such an attempt. Scientists must already be attempting various starting points even today-say playing with cell membranes et al. Success ?
Yes, success.

I do not want to peddle my country's philososophy or theology. I have no vested interest in canvassing Hindu spiritual thought.
I believe that although Science has been an extraordinary tool in the hands of Mankind,it is basically a collection of successful recipes. Am I wrong ? And if as somebody has said in this thread that Science is concerned with seeking explanations of only Natural World,fine.But then believers in Science cannot pour scorn on others who are examining these issues with non scientific tools.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not man can create life in the laboratory? If man does create life in the lab, will it kill your argument? If man fails to create life in the lab will it support your argument?

What non-scientific tools exist? Can you give an example of one, then explain why you think its results are valid and how one would go about showing they are valid without essentially resorting to scientific methods?