I recently discovered the channel SubAnima. Some of their videos are about fighting against a mechanistic understanding of cellular life, argue against a gene-driven view of evolution and promoting an anti-reductionist view of biology.
It's really good, and it talks about the use of metaphors in science (like saying that cells are tiny clockwork device), how much they help us and when it is time to change them. It shows how we can still use math and be philosophically rigorous to promote views of biology that are not a copy of physics, while still avoiding the mistakes of vitalism and lamarckism.
The channel give pragmatic arguments to abandon reductionism, but the next question become: Is reductionism required for naturalism? Is "true" emergence impossible? It is cool to see people argue otherwise, and I can think of one potential argument against reductionism, but if you put a gun to my head, my instinct would be to side with the reductionist. Yes, it might be due because I was born in a culture that promote reductionism, but such arguments would fail to move me, my reply would be "but reductionism is true though." Still, I am not convinced that reductionism is obviously true, and I think it might be possible to find reasons to reject it.