Substrate independence isn’t as widely accepted in the scientific community as I reckoned

I was writing an argument addressed to those of this community who believe AI will never become conscious. I began with the parallel but easily falsifiable claim that cellular life based on DNA will never become conscious. I then drew parallels of causal, deterministic processes shared by organic life and computers. Then I got to substrate independence (SI) and was somewhat surprised at how low of a bar the scientific community seems to have tripped over.

Top contenders opposing SI include the Energy Dependence Argument, Embodiment Argument, Anti-reductionism, the Continuity of Biological Evolution, and Lack of Empirical Support (which seems just like: since it doesn’t exist now I won’t believe it’s possible). Now I wouldn’t say that SI is widely rejected either, but the degree to which it’s earnestly debated seems high.

Maybe some in this community can shed some light on a new perspective against substrate independence that I have yet to consider. I’m always open to being proven wrong since it means I’m learning and learning means I’ll eventually get smarter. I’d always viewed those opposed to substrate independence as holding some unexplained heralded position for biochemistry that borders on supernatural belief. This doesn’t jibe with my idea of scientists though which is why I’m now changing gears to ask what you all think.