As you have well described, there is a readily apparent distinction between life and non-life within the universe. That thought extends to a readily apparent distinction between life and death. The cut is at the point of which governs a corporeal entity: physical laws, in particular thermodynamics - or successful communication (Shannon information).
The indicators include the mystery of the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter, the physical constants and physical laws.
In a big bang, both matter and anti-matter would be created equally and annihilate one another in a burst of gamma radiation. But the universe is full of matter. Science accounts for some of this by a difference in decay rates of b-Meson v anti-b-Mesons but the question remains whether that is sufficient to explain the asymmetry. Even if it were, the difference itself as in the values of the physical constants and the workings of the physical laws would have to be just so in order for biological life to emerge. Even the slightest variance, and there is no biological life. In many cases, a slight variance also means no universe at all.
This raises the question whether the universe have a will to live or if it is willed to live by its Creator, i.e. the uncaused cause of a beginning.
But if the universe is aggressively or willfully engaged in bringing forth and sustaining life we should also expect to see some evidence of information in the universe (self-organizing or self-contained) or at least a residue of communications having occurred, presuming that the will is Gods and not the creatures. We actually do see evidence of sound waves in the early universe and vibrations of strings in string theory. Perhaps that is some of the evidence we seek.
But what we do not (yet) see is the full Shannon-Weaver information model in the universe that we do see in the biological, the molecular machinery: the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver, communications consisting of message, source, encoder, channel, decoder, receiver.
So if the universe is governed by a life principle, it is not exactly the same as biological life. The distinction between (biological) life and non-life, life and death remains.
BTW, I am thinking about posting a new thread to divert traffic concerning the ramifications of what we have been addressing here to the theory of evolution so this thread will not be inadvertently taken into a sidebar debate. What do you think?
I think I will happily follow your lead, Alamo-Girl!
Thank you for your splendid post! You suggest that the evolution of biological life must be considered within the framework of the evolution of the universe as a whole. And I think this an extraordinarily important insight. So if in your judgment a clearer focus on this problem can be gained in a separate, new thread, then I'm all for it.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear Alamo-Girl.
Indeed, and as your above reference to Romans attests, and which believers assert, that "life" is spiritual. I don't see how you are going to be able to discuss it here