Sticking with the explosives analogy I'd liken it more to rocket science than gunpowder. Sure, you might understand and be able to somewhat predictably control

Sticking with the explosives analogy I'd liken it more to rocket science than gunpowder. Sure, you might understand and be able to somewhat predictably control the output of the reactants but in order to use them effectively you are going to introduce an infrastructure for which there will be a tolerance for failure. This broad generalization elides any discussion of the stakes or acceptable tolerances under which we might use these algorithms that simulate life to produce an effect. Further you might plausibly posit that a structuralist approach to biological systems, information, and habitat is not only sisyphean but antithetical to an embodied understanding of our world and ourselves.