Mattrose,
So are you saying that life emerging from chemistry has been observed in the present...
Great question. We have observed parts of living cells develop (fatty acids, amino acids, and so on), we have seen large dynamic structures develop like the cell membranes shown in the animation, we have seen legitimate metabolisms form (by metabolism I mean the formation of cycling reactions that sustain their own survival. They pull in molecules from the environment, assimilate them into the system, and excrete waste). That said, we have not observed an entire living thing (a self-reproducing chemical system) develop without human intervention.
The observations I speak of which suggest that life can emerge from chemistry come mainly from two lines of research:
1. Research into the level of chemical complexity that can develop under natural (non-living) conditions.
2. Research into how living cells work. Living cells are extremely complex and organized. That said, as far as we can tell, there is no vital force powering a bacteria. It appears that a cell can be accurately described as a series of ongoing chemical reactions - life is chemistry. Keep in mind, I'm not speaking of sentient life forms, just reproducing cells like bacteria. The emergence of Consciousness appears to be a separate puzzle.
The goal right now for life origins chemistry is to observe the development of at least one self-replicating chemical system that is produced under plausible ancient Earth conditions, and without the need of human intervention. Any chemical system capable of descent with modification is technically a biological entity. It can evolve according to the principals of biological evolution and It can be considered to be alive, not in the way that a thinking human is alive, but in a way that a self-replicating bacteria is alive.
Once we observe basic chemistry giving rise to reproducing chemical systems, start to finish, we will know that chemical evolution is capable of giving rise to life. We will not know how it actually happened though. As of now, the actual pathway that life on earth followed in its development appears to be lost to history.
Are the examples you might cite really examples of natural chemistry or do they depend on intelligence?
If you don't mind, let me reword your question to see if I understood it correctly:
If scientists recreate life or parts of life, wouldn't that be intelligent design, not evidence of natural processes?
That depends on how the experiments are done. Scientists study life origins in several different ways but the most important way is by setting up scenarios they think are possible in space, or on the ancient Earth. They then watch what happens. The "intelligence" involved in these types of experiments is in trying to accurately create probable environments, and in setting things up so that we can observe the chemical reactions as they occur (not an easy task). These scientists do not design the resulting chemical products. The environment they setup does all the "designing".
I'll go into this in depth in my next animation for Georgia Tech called "What did we learn from the Miller Urey Experiment?". That video should be ready to see in October. The Miller Urey experiment is the one you've probably heard about that produced amino acids from simple gasses. It was the first life origins experiment ever performed. The conditions used in it are now known to be wrong for ancient Earth but the concepts used have inspired much of the research ever since.
Several groups are trying to intelligently design cells from scratch. If they succeed, this will not be evidence of nature producing life but it will help guide researchers who are looking for environments that would facilitate the reactions that give rise to life.
Sorry for writing such a long response
Thanks for the thoughtful questions.