: I seem to recall that Jules Verne often denigrated Hugo Wells' fiction,
: because Hugo Wells rarely tried to make it plausible. Jules Verne often
: included contemporary science and engineering (even if he got it wrong!)
: into his stories.

Yeah, there is a difference; tho to me it's different ends of the 'grey' spectrum of 'space magic' :P You can draw a hard line separation between the two if you like. There is a literary difference in style, but for me 'space magic' isn't restricted by that line. *shrug*

: ... So every single instance of blue Tron lines is supposed to be an example
: of hardlight?
: I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that a majority of fans, prior to
: Halo 4, would have written off the glowy blue circuitry-like lines as the
: same sort of hardlight we saw used in bridges.

Speaking from personal experience, I didn't take the concept so seriously when I saw it. I saw blue everywhere - energy shields, structural lines, bridges - I just considered it all Forerunner energy space magic. Whether it was made "hard" or a controlled force or whatever. So no, I didn't see "hard light" everywhere I saw blue lines, I saw blue energy everywhere I saw blue, implemented in various ways. So for me, seeing more officially labeled use of 'hard light' isn't a big leap, in-fiction. Prefereably, its "overuse" is quite subjective. *shrug*
They did rely on it, esthetically, far too much in Halo 4; and use of actual "hard light" in whatever manner (as you outlined) has of course increased dramatically for Halo 4.

: Do-anything Forerunner magitech is purely a 343i invention, and
: it is disingenuous to assert otherwise.

Here's where we differ, since you used "do-anything forerunner magitech" - to me, that's blu-glowy-energy, which has been around abundantly since Halo 1. In canonically labeled "hard light" form, I of course agree that it's more abundant in Halo 4.
I think of it like blue-energy was a hazy nebulous concept fictionally when Halo began, with rare instances used in 'hard light' form. As the universe was fleshed out, this Forerunner 'magitech' grew fictionally more refined (ymmv) and so 'hard light' is now referenced far more often.

:: I would only see recreation of molecules as creating an inert entity. The
:: difference between the entity being 'alive' and 'dead'.
: Sure, you'd need some finagling to get the cellular activity going, but that
: should be simple chemistry.

I supposed that's where we fundamentally disagree about the 'nature' of life. If you can do this simple magichemistry (sorry) to jumpstart inert molecules into living organic mode, then you've just solved demonstrated the origin of Life itself. In a way at least. I would say making inert molecules 'alive' is on the far end of your 'space magic' scale by today's scientific standards.

: But in the case of evolution, living matter arose from organic molecules
: (non-living matter) at least once before in history, and likely several
: times afterward. It is not impossible, merely unlikely.

So, um, in an effort not to derail this thread into an enormous discussion about Evolution, let's just leave it at our differences of opinion about the nature of life, and that we hold different standards about the plausibility of life being cloneable from raw material. :)

: Are you familiar with the concept of "God of the gaps"?

I am quite aware of the concept, and very much don't condone it myself. :)

: So, that's what you're defending. Gaps that will become smaller and smaller.
: We have already learned how to clone animals, and work is already underway
: to create the simplest organism possible from scratch.

Cloning animals was done via test tube, using existing DNA. Organic and alive. Not from raw atoms and molecules. Definitely not Star Trek transporter-like duplication.

: Unless you wish to argue in favor of a soul, we are biology, which is applied
: chemistry.

And we don't know Everything about biology. We only know what we observe, and theorize about what we believe is plausible based on our observations. We have not created life, only played with existing life in various ways to see what happens.

: Are we doomed to think that intelligence can only think like us? Some of the
: most precious moments will be when we reach out to a mind completely
: different from ours, and find them reaching back.

Sure, and no I don't think 'intelligence' is only thinking like Us. But I was only discussing the nature of Life, not getting into the nature and beauty of intelligence :)

: "The best science fiction asks 'what if?' The worst science fiction
: states 'this is how it is.'"
: -Quirel Rasq'uire'laskar

Exactly

: The Formerunner?

Does that make us the Afterunner?

: I went and watched it with a fellow engineer. We walked out of the theater
: talking about better (More efficient, more entertaining) ways to kill
: Kaiju.

: -Institute a breeding program for the skin parasites, put them into
: hibernation, wire them with shaped charges, and drop them on a Kaiju as it
: comes to shore.
: -Build the wall higher, line it with landmines and whatever gun that Mk III
: Jager was using.
: -German U-Boats scaled up to 500 meters long, to interdict the Kaiju before
: they reach shore.

but..but..but... we don't want more plausible strategies!