A better analogy would be to apply the Turing test to determining whether something was alive. Imagine anyone seriously trying to claim that a new Disney animatronic animal must be alive because it fooled a sufficiently large number of people into thinking it is. That's complete nonsense, and so is the Turing test.
This is what happens when "scientists" seek only materialistic explanations for life.
A computer's able to play chess was once thought to be a challenge which requires artificial intelligence to solve.
As chess programs became more powerful, rivaling Master level and even up to Grandmaster level, the enthusiasm of the artificial intelligence community seems to have waned.
I decided that the reason for the declining interest is that true "artificial intelligence", if there ever is such a thing, has an attribute that hasn't been discussed, as far as I know.
That attribute is that the scientific community must be UNABLE to explain how the artificial intelligence arrives at its conclusions. If you understand, then you are less impressed.
Soon we will probably get to the point where very old software is used to accomplish useful ends and yet nobody understands how it works. That might well satisfy my definition.