Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Berger <bergerd@bluffton.edu>
To: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>
Cc: 'ASA List' <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Review Paper
>I would say that Scientific American is a good compromise. Publication in a
>biological review journal would limit the audience (as would publication
in,
>say, Chemical Reviews), while Discover might tend to be more easily
>dismissed because you would not be able to bring as much evidence to bear.
>
>Ideally, you might publish a fully-referenced review in a biological review
>journal and do a rewrite for SciAm (or vice versa).
>
>
>> Working Title: Laboratory Synthesis of Life: Implications
>> for a Biological
>> Definition of Life
>>
>> Introductory Remarks
>> Part One: Metaphysical vs. biological definitions of life, and the
>> implications of synthesis of life in the lab
>
>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.
>
>> Part Two: Overview of proteinoid microsphere protocell research
>> Part Three: Protocells in light of cell theory
>> Concluding Remarks: Protocells meet all the requirements of
>> cell theory so
>> they should be considered alive in the biological sense
>
>Nothing particularly controversial here.
>
>Looking forward to it.
>
>Yours,
>
>Dan
>--------------------------------------------
>Daniel J. Berger |PH 419-358-3379
>Assoc Prof of Chemistry|FX 419-358-3323
>Bluffton College |
>Bluffton OH 45817-1196|bergerd@bluffton.edu
>--------------------------------------------
>