Whenever I see such claims, it becomes obvious how philosophically and intellectually incompetent we are.

There are several notions that aren’t examined, which stands in the way of having a sensible conversation about the question.

1. The definition of computation.

2. The definition of life.

3. The difference between the real order and the logical and epistemic orders.

Searle famously pointed out that computation is observer-relative. Sure, we can establish some kind of abstracted correspondence between a computing formalism and a natural process, and this correspondence can be fun or even a useful metaphor, but it is senseless to ask whether life is computation. Objectively, without an observer, there is no computation going on. In fact, even your computer is not objectively speaking computing.

You can effectively draw this correspondence with anything (Seth Lloyd did this with quantum mechanics), and if everything is computation, then nothing is. It becomes a synonym for all of reality.