If not, then the history of science strongly suggests we can eventually learn the mechanisms of life and intelligence and then find a way to imperfectly yet sufficiently reimplement them.

No. I am simply suggesting that creating life (and intelligence) from inert materals may involve more than "just chemistry". In the same way that lead can not be turned into gold by "just chemistry".

I welcome knowledge and proof to the contrary but thus far, there is none.

Perhaps to truly understand life we need to look deeply at physics, geology, fluid dynamics, and many other specialized fields, in addition to chemistry. And maybe we will need some new discoveries in these areas than have not yet been made. Is that all?

I don’t think there is really much contention between that and the idea that life is “just chemistry”. I would bet most people saying that are totally fine with what I wrote above and are likely just trying to be concise with their words.

Unless you mean more than you are plainly saying, this seems like splitting hairs about the taxonomy of scientific understanding. Understanding is understanding, regardless of how you categorize it.

Much of our progress in medicine, science, and technology has been made due to the idea that the world around operates in an orderly fashion and can be investigated and understood.

The ultimate proof is actually doing it. Start with nothing but inert materials and produce a new, unique form of living organism using "just chemistry".

I'm not saying it can't be done, I am saying that thus far, it hasn't been done. And the reason it hasn't been done might be because "just chemistry" is an overly simplistic description of what is needed to actually achieve it.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

EDIT: some grammar

I am happy to admit that doing a good job of differentiating is tricky business indeed, and that we all make many blatant errors and are prone to developing distorted ways of seeing things.

Nonetheless, I do believe that humanity has acquired some real understanding of the world and will continue to do so.

Keep in mind that no amount of rocketeering has ever put a man on Mars, but that hardly constitutes a proof, or even serious evidence, that it is impossible.

Arguments from ignorance are a terrible thing.

The fact that it has not been done with "just chemistry" is no proof but it does tend to skew the probabilities toward the view that substantially more may be required.

One would think that the synthesis of urea back in 1828 would at least weaken this argument, but hey...

That claim has roughly the same epistemological status as Last Thursdayism ("the world was created last Thursday in a state where we have memories and see evidence of past events but those events aren't actually real.").

> What we do know at this point is that no amount of "just chemistry" has ever managed to create even the most rudimentary form of "life" from inert chemicals.

How do we know that? Are you just talking about humans practicing chemistry?

For example, how transfer of functions emerges after hemispherectomy (half a brain is removed), to best of my understanding is unknown.