Let's stop right here. We observe life. We observe non-living matter. We observe there is a difference.
We do? Funny, I am sure that all matter is made from the same type of atoms, following the same physical rules. The only difference is in their arrangement. Just because we deem life to be an important result (and branch) of chemistry (ie biochemistry), it still is just chemistry. There is no supernatural force that makes living creatures move, live, breath and reproduce. Major advancements have been made in biology and medicine for the very reason that life is just a form of chemistry and thus can be understood.
IF science is about finding the truth to our existence?
Science is about finding supported and logical explanations for observable phenomena. It has nothing to do with "truth", as that implies we have discovered incontravertible rules by which nature operates. However, the progress of science comes from out simple admittance that we can only explain phenomena with less than 100 percent certaintiy, and that modification may be neccesary. This is a direct result that reality is never wrong, just our understanding of it.
And as for natural processes- does my computer run on natural processes? There isn't any real intelligence in the operating system or applications but it took intelligence to design and create them. If genomes are analogous to computer programs, as some IDists (& Bill Gates) say, we would have to figure out the language before speculating on your questions.
Of course your computer runs on "natural" processes. It hardly violates any physics. In fact, the computer is only possible due to our understanding of physics. However, the rules that make computers function operate wether or not there are computers. As for your computer to life analogy, it is poor at best. First, computers are not able to reproduce, change, etc as biological systems are. Additionally, the structure of computers systems have to be seperated by proccesses that don't occur in nature. However, anyone taking o-chem will tell you that given a proper mix of chemical and a catalyst, organic reactions do occur. The defining distinction between the two is easily seen. Also, computer languages may be analgous to DNA, but they aren't the same. The analogy is that both carry forms of information, but that information, how it is proccessed and expreesed are radically different. Computer codes are inherantly aribrary, which various schemes of operations being defined and standardized. However, there is no "naturalistic" expression of the code, only human designed function and interpretation. On the other hand, DNA codes specific sequances of chemicals, which have definite representation in reality, that based on shape and compisition, have a fixed and idependant reality and and properties. They require no intelligent operation or understanding.
Oh, yea and in regards to :
Why is it that Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pateur, Aristotle et al., saw the overwhelming evidence for design and inteligence in the universe?
Well, my guess its because of their various religious persuasions, which had nothing to do with their scientific endevours. Of course, all but Louis Pastuer were dead before TOE was oringally fomulated by Charles Darwin. Be akin to saying none of them saw evidence for/ or didn't agree with Special or General realitivity. Or QM for that matter. A completley non-sensical statment. As for Louis Pastuer,I am not sure what his personal opinion in regards to TOE, but it is possible that he didn't oringally agree with it ( it did come out during his lifetime.) Of course, supporting quotes of his material or journals would be neccasry to support that he didn't accept the theory either.
Remember, personal belief in a diety doesn't automatically equate to overwhelming belief in a personal god that tampers directly with reality.
™ Version 4.2