AFAIK, Virus' and bacteria are considered replicators and not alive. This means that to Science, these are molecular combinations whose chemical energy potential leads them to make copies of themselves but don't quite make the cut-off for true life (since they require a ridiculously specific set of conditions to survive and replicate... way beyond what a normal symbiotic relationship would need). Hence, they are clear cut examples of how non-replicating objects can cooperate, coalesce, or otherwise conspire to reproduce their effective energy-conserving strategy.

In other words, at some point the interplay between energy and matter was such that it set up a self-replicating, self-sustaining system without an iota of intelligence or individuality. This is no great mystery BTW... just look at Cellular Automata and "Life"!



Simple: we are not victims of presumption. We don't presume to know everything, we don't presume to have all the answers, and we certainly don't presume to be able to replicate the wonderful, mysterious, complicated artifact that is (by anyone’s definitions) "Life" in the mere 300 some odd year that science has been around! I mean organized religion has been around for about 3000 years... why not give Science the same time-span to make IT'S case?

So of course we can't make life!!!!!!! As I've stated, Life is undefined and thus a horrible candidate for science. Once we get a better grasp on what it means to be alive, then, and only the, will science try to crack that nut. But even then, science is prepared for disappointment. Science doesn't mind. Science is patient and open minded. And if Life truly requires a non-scientific (ie: spiritual) component, I guaran-f'n-tee you that Science will be the first to acknowledge it and bring it into its fold! That's just how we scientists roll!