One distinct problem with this definition is that is does not exclude computers from the group of RlivingS things. Chemical Darwinism suggests that an organism must be capable of metabolism and other processes which sustain life. Material Darwinism focuses on the reproductive aspect. They form long chains, separate and then replicate the strand that detached. They reproduce perfectly and there is room for mutation.
Metabolism too is limited as a foundation for definition.
Both definitions leave uncertainty regarding the role of the cell, which is the smallest unit of life. I find more basis for chemical Darwinism than any other definition we have studied in class or readings, however, I think it is important for the shortcomings of this working definition to be examined.