While I acknowledge that Galileo is often referred to as the father of modern science, that is still an opinion, one not met with consensus I might add.

At this point, you may have to clearly outline where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition.

Also, the contention that Christianity gave rise to science (where this probably should be "modern science"?), relies greatly on timing. The link between Christian thought giving rise to scientific thought is tenuous and appears to me to be largely circumstantial. Nothing happens within a vacuum, everything tends to grow from foundations laid previously. That is probably why so many people have trouble with evolution, it happens gradually, inexorably from the past, into the future, where so many people want to pinpoint the exact time and place something started.

Galileo himself also found his work at odds with the prevailing Christian thought of the time. Since then, science has often found itself at odds with the prevailing Christian thought of the time. Guess who changed? Science attempts to describe reality, Christianity (and religion in general) is understandably threatened by this. If you think there is nothing to fear from finding out the truth of things, you are right. However, if you think that science will not change your religion eventually and irrevocably, you are wrong. It cannot replace religion, but it will change it. A lot.

Bugsy,Celivia,

To go with my minimum criterion, my minimalist definition of "process", quite simply - an ability to do work in a consistent fashion.

The inherent characteristic of such a "process" (any productive process):
(1) It consumes energy;
(2) It causes an observable change (ie. there is an output);
(3) The output is structured (ie. not random).

First, a dilemma - Must at least one process be active for something to be considered a life?
YES, in case of animals (Heart constantly beats even when sleeping, hybernating)
NO, in the case of "a dormant grain of wheat". (Thanks for your input)
( A dormant grain of wheat cannot possibly sustain a constantly active process, like having a "heart beat". Otherwise the wheat grain would exhaust all its energy and dies.)

To include "a dormant grain of wheat" in the "Super Set", there must be no requirement for the minimalist "process" to be constantly active.
Paradoxically this means a "life", although classified as a life, may have a state of non-life. It may literally be DEAD at times.

Yet, human life (with non-stop heart beats) satisfies such a minimum criterion; A dormant grain of wheat also satisfies such a criterion, and fit within the "Super Set".

In fact a virus falls neatly in the same category as a grain of wheat - It can switch from non-life to life, and vice versa. Now my minimum criterion allows a virus to be included in the "Super Set" as well.

To avoid making a total fool of myself, I decided to google search. Then I found this gem :

http://www.mcb.uct.ac.za/tutorial/virwhat.html

Quote: "...the only real criterion for life is: THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE" !!

bingo... !!

A virus can replicate on its own accord. Replication is in fact a sub-set of "process", agree?
A grain of wheat germinates on its own accord. Germination is also a "process".
A virus is literally DEAD, a non-life. But when it replicates, it is ALIVE !!

To be continued....

A difficulty I had was my criterion that "a material life...must be an entity with a FINITE BOUNDARY".

I learn that a virus is in fact merely "the current slice in a continuous lineage" -- It does not contain a finite cell boundary at all.

Then I found, a virus contains "...a protective protein coat called a capsid" (Wikipedia)
Therefore even a virus contains substance within a boundary of sort.

So yes, in fact my minimum criterion has gone too far -- It may even covers "life-form" MUCH MORE PRIMITIVE than a virus (if there is such an organism)

In order to shrink my "Super Set", I do agree the process in my minimum criterion be defined to satisfy the most primitive organism known - a virus.
Therefore the minimum requirement for a "process" is: THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE"

The process of replication does involves an INPUT (the host environment) and produces an OUTPUT (another copy of oneself)

A good reason to search for a minimum criterion for life, is simply to search for a meaning of life.

Once we know the minimum criterion for life, then we can re-visit that question - Can the SIMPLEST life-form occur naturally, or artificially??

If the SIMPLEST life-form is proven to be created naturally, then the evolution theory has significant credibility.
However, if there is no known natural process that is able to create even the SIMPLEST life-form, then Ummm...., I kid you not, creation in the Bible may well be a statement of TRUTH.

Because it is only a matter of time scientists ARTIFICIALLY CREATE the simplest life-form.

Any comment?

mjpb,
In the Bible Jesus mentioned a seed must first drop to the ground, be DEAD, before it grows and produces many fold. Can you confirm this?
In fact until today, I always wondered how Jesus (who claimed to be God) got it so wrong, by saying something is dead, but then alive again.
Well, I'm satisfied my puzzle is now resolved :)

Enough for my mental strain.... Over to you all :)

Yes, I guess Jesus may well have thought that a grain of wheat would be dead. But it is in fact dormant. However, DEATH is not DORMANCY, otherwise ma frozen IVF embryo would be classified as dead, which is clearly not the case.

Anyway, I think you are certainly getting a little closer to a better definition. Just a thought though: conventionally, the criteria of life often include criteria like: organization (closely analogous to your ‘finite boundary’), metabolism (consumption of energy), growth (process), reproduction (process/output), movement (process/output), response to external stimuli (process/output), and adaptation (process/output). But some of these criteria have been recognised to have certain problems under particular circumstances and may not be universal.

It appears to me that you may have just simplified these criteria, but simplified them past a point where it includes too much (ie non-life).

Another observation, there is by no means any consensus that viruses are living organisms, as they can't actually replicate by themselves or with just an energy input. They need host cellular machinery to do it (ribosomes). But they do replicate under particular circumstances, but then, so do prions. Viruses use up energy from host cells, but they don't have a metabolism in the conventional understanding of metabolism.

So, given all this, what is it that distinguishes your definition from previous criteria apart from them being bit simpler and thus being a tad too broad for recognition of what is "alive"?

Bugsy,

You are non committal even with the term "modern science". I am happy to call what I consider science "modern science" for the purpose of the discussion. However you haven't clearly committed to even that description.

We don't have the same view about the tenuousness of the link between Christian thought and science but you are probably correct that it is at best "largely circumstantial". I believe the Greeks (and Christians) provided the foundations that were built upon. The difference between the Greeks and Arabs and the Europeans was that Europeans built modern science on the Greek foundation for some reason. I have a theory about the reason. I note that other cultures eg. Chinese also came close to getting science (modern science?) off the ground.

I agree with the bare fact you assert about Galileo. However I'm not in the same mind regarding the implications. Gallileo came unstuck officially on something that was previously ok for Copernicus. Had Gallileo not forcefully played theologian with the Catholic Church at a time when Martin Luther had just rattled the cart and creating defensiveness and had he not undermined his credibility with assertions that were challenging (eg. claiming circular orbits cf. Keplers eliptical orbits and claiming tides proved Copernicanism as tides were due to earth's orbital frequency rather than Kepler's theory they were due to sun and moon gravity) things may well have been different. The Church later saw the light and "changed" but did science really "often find itself at odds with the prevailing Christian thought"?

mjpb, a couple of points;

1) you still haven't clearly outlined where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition. It does not matter whether I have committed to it or not, you clearly have. If you show clearly where this is the case (i.e. the previous contributions to science don't fit or partially fit the def.), then I can understand that you have a legitimate point using that definition (ie the logic is internally consistent), regardless of whether I agree with it (the definition) or not. If you cannot, then your argument (that the previous contributions to knowledge aren't science) isn't even internally valid.

2) Galileo found himself at odds with the Church, yes, not necessarily science in that case, point conceded. Science, however, has found itself at odds with prevailing Christian thought a number of times since. Eg, evolution, stem cell research etc.