In a recent article just published (here) scientific materialists are shown to be in major denial about something that affects the very heart of their theory that the origin of life, and all on-going life processes now, can be accounted for by chemistry and physical processes alone (what I will refer to as chemogenesis). This debate began in Nautica’s thread “Religion disproving Evolution and proving Creation through Science???” I will reiterate the main points made there. My claim is that chemistry cannot be shown to produce the particular sort of organization that is necessary for, and indeed central to, life. To reflect more clearly about the problem, I ask thinkers to separate the two concepts of 1) chemistry and 2) organization. Regarding chemistry, there is no doubt it is the physical basis of life. Likewise, there is no doubt that the chemistry of life achieves incredible things; even when not technically alive, for instance, one can use cellular constituents in chemically sophisticated ways. Now, humanity has considerable skill with chemistry - - we work with it all the time. Let’s say we get to the stage one day were we can replicate every single bit of chemistry that goes on in life. Will we then have life? No, not quite yet because we need something more. The “more” we need is for that chemistry to enter into what we might term progressive organization. Progressive organization is characterized by at least four traits: 1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something. That is, it is not just repetitive as in say crystal organization, but instead develops multipart characteristics which are aimed at the second trait, and that is . . . 2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions. Progressive system building actually uses resources from the environment to do a third thing, which is . . . 3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate. Finally . . . 4. Progressive organization persists perpetually. This is no small matter because it is that persistence which seems to have forced chemistry into “living” in the first place, and then what kept it going for billions of years through every hostility Earth’s violent ways imposed on it. Okay, so we have the great potentials of chemistry, and we have the great potentials of organization. We know the two work together well because life demonstrates that. The claim materialists make is that the organizational profundity of life is derived from chemical and other physical potentials. And what is their evidence? Well, chemogenesis advocates routinely cite one marvelous bit of chemical capacity after another as though this answers the question. They point to the spontaneous organizing behavior of crystals, polymers, or autocatalytic reactions. Some researchers see as more significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres. Yet all of this fails to explain the organizational issue. No one, not ever, has reproduced in chemistry (or through any other physical means) a spontaneous-launching organizational process of the sort that that will: perpetually develop adaptive systems, build one hierarcally system on top of another, and with each new system support the survivability of the overall system. So I say that if one cannot get chemistry to kick into progressively organizing gear, then why be so ready to believe chemistry can do it? And I don’t insist one has to achieve life from chemistry either; I mean prove progressive organization (as defined) is possible from chemistry and Earth’s physics. Isn’t that a reasonable request from a man of reason?