an evolutionary biologist's perspective
this is a perfect example of how a simple biological question, 'what is life?' can devolve into an argument about semantics.
depending on how one defines 'life,' one can include or exclude any life form. it's all bullshit.
we probably can agree what is life to the level of bacteria.
the question remains 'are viruses alive?'
this question is not solved by taking a survey of biologist's opinions. it's not a popularity contest.
what it does is raise the question of whether or not we have an adequate definition of life. it appears that we do not.
since viruses evolve, reproduce, and (at least potentially) have enzymatic catalysis, does this not make them alive?
ask yourself the question, if viruses have evolved into the super-parasites that they are from some single-celled organisms (like a bacterium), would you still consider them non-life (given the same characteristics that they have now)? if so, one must ask the question whether life forms can 'evolve' into non-life forms.