It is based first on the unparalleled, zealous undertaking of all the branches of the natural sciences, which, being for the most part handled by people who have learned nothing else, threatens to lead to a crass and stupid materialism of which the primary offence is not the moral bestiality of the ultimate results, but the incredible ignorance of first principles, since even the life force is denied and organic nature is degraded to a chance play of chemical forces.
— Schoppenhaur (Preface to Will in Nature)
In my teenage years I was a reddit contrarian wikipedia-sourcing science respecter. My uncle was a raw-food vegan whom I would have long arguments with about the unsound evidence of his diet. He told me that enzymes were life, and were the smallest living substance. ACKSHULLY, I would say, enzymes are just a string of proteins, simple amino acids, that are not alive at all, according to the science.
but apparently enzymes move, and not just at random but intelligently- they have some response to stimuli.
However, while bacteria orient towards the food supply, enzymes move to the direction of lesser substrate concentration. "Molecules lack decision making capabilities, but surprisingly move towards areas with less substrate. Indeed, the substrate introduces the direction bias, and the higher the substrate concentration we used in the experiment, the stronger this tendency. We hypothesize that it could be a way to make the product concentration uniform around the medium, even when substrate concentration is not," clarifies Prof. Tsvi Tlusty, who offered the theoretical understanding of this research.
so why are enzymes not alive? when they move on their own, purposively? because there is a loose scientific definition of "life". An enzyme isn't alive simply because it does not grow nor reproduce - that's literally it. There is a scientific aversion to hypothesis of life forces, animal magnetisms, microzyma, orgone, or whatever else you want to call it. Why is this?