Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, the number of chroms is only one of my prongs.

Regardless, however, what constitutes "life", is a question that cannot, imo, be answered by the physical sciences alone. The physical sciences can tell us some properties something has (for example, at a given point of development), what is the norm, what came first, likely comes next, etc. (at least wrt our current understanding). But the answer to that question involves, in part, philosophical considerations and, quite frankly, value judgments. And, if we accept the modern "science is completely objective and valueless" dogma, then we are absolutely compelled to admit that science is not intended to, nor capable of, touching on either (especially the latter).

Certainly science can, and should, help inform our considerations of ethics, morals, metaphysics (on some level), etc. just as ethics, morals, etc. should help inform our scientific decisions (which they do, regardless of the standard dogma and even disregarding the current veto).


I guess this is a related aside note (or not?), but...
I find the Philosophy of Science (and Bioethics in particular) endlessly facinating, and anyone who is particularly interested in Bioethics should read "Human Cloning...", "Beyond Therapy...", and "Being Human..." (titles truncated because I can't remember the entire titles) published by the President’s Council on Bioethics. They really do a good job of covering so many issues, and while you may end up disagreeing with their conclusions, the issues raised and subsequent discussions are very enlightening.