If this were my objection, then you would be right. That would
be vitalism. Let me try again. The term biomolecule originated
at a time when it *was* thought that these molecules could only
be made by biological systems. This terminology will stick
of course. But we need to be careful in our thinking now that
we know that these molecules can be formed by other means.
For example, we might be led to the conclusion that the natural
formation of say an amino acid automatically has something to
do with the origin of life because we have in our mind that
amino acids are not just molecules but some special kind of
molecule, i.e. a biomolecule. So, being a nonvitalist :), I
would argue that amino acids are just molecules having no
special status because they happen to be found in living
things. Thus, the formation of an amino acid by passing an
electrical discharge through some gas does not automatically
and necessarily have anything to do with the origin of life.
Granted, the "predictions" of vitalists certainly made it
seem this way.
[disclaimer: I'm not wholly convinced by my own argument
here. I saw it given somewhere else several years ago and
have kept mulling it over and over. Thought I would toss
it out to see what reaction it might generate.]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne