I find it odd that you make grandiose declarations like this. You might say science has yet to explain life in naturalistic terms, but I don’t understand how you would allow yourself to claim that it can’t. How could you possibly know that?
It cannot explain nature in naturalistic terms. And if the explanations are not true then they do not even exist to science.
This is nonsensical of course, since you seem to be saying science is about truth, which it isn’t. Science is about useful and predictive models that describe reality. They are not reality itself, and will necessarily always be approximations. No scientific models are strictly true, but some are useful. Of course, they’re useful because they are in some sense close to the truth whatever that might be.
Science can and does investigate telic processes.
The fact that science can do so, doesn’t mean all processes investigated by science are telic.
And only special pleading and a ton of question-begging says that those telic processes arose via naturalistic processes.
I have no idea what telic processes you are talking about so I’m not aware of anyone claiming to know how they arose in the first place(or even if they did).
Of course, any assertion that natural processes arose by nonnaturalistic means, or that they came into existence, would be just that, mere assertion.