We were "merely" entertaining the idea that a change in the initial premise of science from the materialist, mechanistic, "building blocks" presupposition to a presupposition of a living universe might enable us to end what appears to be a stalemate or road block in the conduct of the life sciences, and might even shed some light on plate techtonics. Plate techtonics, after all, involves a process unfolding in time. You can't "explain" that process on the basis of materialist presuppositions, which claim that everything that happens in the universe is the result of material and efficient causes only. It seems to me that anything which exhibits the nature of a process cannot be fully understood without the reintroduction of formal and final causes. I thought the object was to "understand the world around us", and that we were entertaining the idea the "what is life?" was a better question than "what is reality?".
You say that you are not limiting the range of your query by changing the question to "what is life?". There appears to be much in reality that "what is life?" does not cover, and at the same time nothing in life that "what is reality?" does not cover. I see nothing to be gained by changing the question, and much to be lost.