"What it says to me is that, if a single (or even a collection) urea
molecule is defined as 'living,' then we need another word to describe that
attribute for organisms such as dogs and insects and bacteria and such."
OK, it appears that you have unintentionally misunderstood what I was trying
to say; I probably didn't explain it right, though. Because of the way the
term "life" has changed for biologists and biochemists, they no longer
distinguish between a whole organism, its metabolism or the components of
that metabolism. That does not mean that they consider a molecule like urea
or a test tube solution of amino acids or an enzyme to be the same
qualitatively as a whole organism. But they prefer to leave the questions
of what constitutes these qualitative differences to philosophers. Instead
they are concerned with quantitative differences. A bacterium is clearly
alive, but the source of its life is its metabolism, whereas the source of
the ability of metabolism to keep the bacterium alive is its components.
These components are found exclusively in living systems. Ergo they are
living matter in the strict scientific sense of the word. Whether they are
alive in a philosophical sense is irrelevant, but calling them living
material does not mean they are alive in the same qualitative sense as a
bacterium. So to avoid irrelevant philosophical entanglements they are
called biological material. This acknowledges that they are chemicals found
only in biological systems that make up the metabolic system that keeps a
bacterium alive without engendering the philosophical quagmire you seek to
drag them into.
Ergo as well, if we define abiogenesis as the creation of biological
material from non-biological material using non-biological processes, then
the Miller-Urey experiments, thermal copolymerization and the Wohler
experiment count as abiogenetic events.
"Fair question. As I mention above, there is a definitional problem."
Only because you find it difficult to abandon your vitalistic bias.
"It is not whether I use 'scientific terminology or not,' but how we would
agree on the question(s) under discussion."
How can we discuss the questions if we are using different terminology? And
since the questions are scientific, why shouldn't we use scientific
terminology?
"I used the word 'substantive' above; I think I'll stand by it, as correct
in the every-day language. The parallel I can think of in physics is the
word 'work.' If I were to say (to a non-physicist in a philosophical
discussion) that a person standing around holding a heavy load without
moving it was not performing any work, I'd be right scientifically but
ludicrous in a general conversation."
If you are having a philosophical discussion, then scientific definitions
are in appropriate (though "every-day" definitions are inaccurate and I
couldn't even imagine what the philosophical definition of work would be),
but we are not having a philosophical discussion, we are having a scientific
one, so scientific definitions are very appropriate, whether they contradict
"every-day language" or not. It's that simple.
Kevin L. O'Brien