The following statement comes from a highly regarded college physics textbook:¹

“By means of the statistical definition of entropy, Eq. 25-13,² we can give meaning to the entropy of a system in a non-equilibrium state.  A nonequilibrium state has a definite entropy because it has a definite degree of disorder.  Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics can be put on a statistical basis, for the direction in which natural processes take place (toward higher entropy) is determined by the laws of probability (towards a more probable state).  From this point of view a violation of the second law, strictly speaking, is not an impossibility.  If we waited long enough, for example, we might find the water in a pond suddenly freezing over on a hot summer day.”

The textbook goes on to say that the odds for the lake to freeze over are insanely low (10¹⁰ times the age of the universe) and that the second law of thermodynamics occupies the status of being

“… one of the most useful and general laws of all physics.”

This example, proffered to illustrate the statistical definition of entropy, is wrong.  The water molecules in the lake are in a continual process of exchanging momentum, (Brownian movement) forcing the average momentum to be constant, due to the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and thermal conductivity. Stated differently, a few molecules in a microsystem of the lake can be in a “nonequilibrium state” but the lake as a macro whole is in equilibrium.

The reality is that the lake will never freeze over on a hot summer day – the probability is zero. This assertion is made based on a micro-physics principle (probability of a molecule having a specified momentum) and ignoring a macro-physics principle that applies to the frozen lake example (the first law of thermodynamics and the logical reality that the lake’s molecules are exchanging momentum). This is an example of a theoretical possibility that is, in reality, impossible due to logical constraints.

Theoretical contraints and logical contraints are two separate things. The laws of physics provide a theoritical foundation of possibilities for matter, energy, space and time. However, not all of the possible states that do not violate the laws are achieveable. Natural outcomes are determined by actions that take place that depend upon initial conditions. The initial conditions depend upon previous actions. The initial condions include boundaries of the interacting systems, configuration of the matter, and all forms of energy involved. Such a process cannot and does not achieve all possible outcomes as the simple thought experiment illustrates. It seems as if the world of theoreitical physics assumes that there is statistical probablity that all outcomes that do not violate the laws of physics are possible, even thought I have not been able to find an explicit statement to this effect.  Typically, this is a typical probability:

…and ω is the probability that the system will exist in the state is is in relative to all the possible states it could be in.”³

 It is generally acknowledged by materialists that life seems to be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.  However, the argument goes, if there is an outside energy source that can be used to lower entropy (like the sun), coupled with the sort of misguided thinking above, there is a finite, albeit insanely small, theoretical probability that beginning life could start by natural causes.  This is also false.  The probability is zero because natural causes are incapable of performing the intelligent work required to live.  This is a logical constraint, not a scientific one.

This is an example where engineering experience is useful.  It is obvious to an engineer by experience that most engineered entities (arrangements of matter/energy) cannot be created by natural causes with any amount of free energy.⁴

  This poses the question: what is the difference between engineered entities and natural entities?  Both are constrained by the laws of physics.  Here is a thought experiment that provides insight.

Image a house with a hallway.  On the floor in the hallway is a picture, and a nail in the wall above the picture.  The doors and windows and any other openings to the house are closed.  The man of the house is sitting at the kitchen bar sipping on a cup of coffee.  His wife asks him to hang the picture she left on the hallway floor.  He says, “no, I’m enjoying my coffee, let nature do it.”  She responds, “I don’t have time for that”, so he obediently goes to the hallway, picks up the picture and hangs it.  He gets rewarded with a kiss.

The man is a theoretical physicist.  He believed that any configuration of matter/energy that does not violate the laws of physics can occur naturally – it would just be a matter of statistical probability coupled with time.

The thought experiment is to answer this question: what possible series of natural events could accomplish this task?  Here is a straw-man scenario, that will work only if the picture is not directly below the nail in the wall.  A giant asteroid with the right momentum hits the earth at the right place in the right direction that causes the earth to accelerate the house with respect to the picture such that the house (nail) moves toward the picture.⁵  If the picture is directly below the nail, the asteroid would have to hit the house to move the earth in the right direction.  Assuming this is not the case, just as the nail passes the picture, another, asteroid hits the other side of the earth in the exact right direction to cause the house to move back in just the right direction such that the picture frame catches the nail in the wall.  Done. The picture is hung by natural causes. 

Of course, all this happens in a few milliseconds. Before equilibrium is reached, the house is destroyed, the earth’s orbit is changed and eventually, all life on earth is destroyed. But the picture was hung if only but a few milliseconds.

This is a silly but instructive example.  It is common sense that the picture cannot hang itself, because no available naturally caused forces could hang the picture without damaging the house.  Thermal energy cannot do the job.  Neither could electromagnetic or electrostatic forces as the picture is not made of magnetic material nor is the picture electrically charged.  However, the physicist was able to hang the picture without violating any law of physics. 

Theorems

The logical conclusion is that with all the openings to the outside shut, there is no internal free energy source capable of hanging the picture.  Free energy results from natural events.  If the inside of the house is in a state of equilibrium, no natural event could create the necessary free energy.  Even if there was free energy available, how could it occur at the right time, in the right form and amount to do the job?  Since natural causes cannot do the job, yet a man can, this theorem must be true:

Theorem:  Natural Causes cannot achieve all outcomes allowed by the laws of physics.

Materialist ideology denies the truth of this theorem, and, in effect, claim intelligence is created by science and therefore is in the same realm.  This theorem is true not because the picture on the wall violates any law of physics; it is true because there are logical constraints on the ability of natural causes to deliver energy at the right place, in the right form at the right time to accomplish many tasks. 

Theoretical and logical constraints are two seperate things. This is typical wording for statistical probability of states:⁶

“…and ω is the probability that the system will exist in the state it is in relative to all the possible states it could be in.”

The bold is highlighted by the author to pose the question “what defines what the possible states are?”  The presumption seems to be the totality of the theoretically possible states. If the “possible states” excluded those excluded for logical reasons, then there is no problem.  But how can this number be determined? An engineer’s experience says that it impossible to pre-determine all of the logica constraints⁷

A man can perform intelligent work,⁸ can control matter/energy to achieve desired ends not possible by natural causes making this theorem true:

Theorem:  Machines can expand upon the outcomes allowed by the laws of physics.

The next step is to determine the reason that a man or a robot can do things that natural causes cannot.  The key lies in the concept of intelligent work.

Since the beginning of recorded history, man has struggled with the question of our origins.  Religion is an answer, but not to all.  As science advanced, more and more of our universe could be explained by the laws of physics that were being discovered.  Darwin’s On the Origin of Species posited an explanation how all life evolved from a common ancestor.  This did not explain beginning life, but since then, theories have been put forward to provide possible chemical paths to fill this gap.  The combination of these ideas is the doctrine of materialism: all that exists can be explained by matter, energy and physics.  The last two decades have raised many issues that question the theories behind this point of view.

Steve Meyer, in his book Signature in the Cell showed how there is embedded information in the cell that is necessary for the existence of life and the odds of Natural Causes finding or creating this information are beyond the realm of probability.

The arguments presented by Meyer are valid and true.  This paper posits a more fundamental argument shaped by a machine and process control engineering background.  Upon discovery that there are molecular machines working in the cell, it was obvious to an engineer that life is not just about chemistry, it also involves intelligent processes⁶ enabled by machinery, which, other than life, is associated with engineering.  This lead to the quest to determine the difference between engineered objects and things that result from natural causes.  This quest revealed that the difference is embedded intelligence, which means that the intelligent design argument elevates from “where did the embedded information come from” to “where did the embedded (logical) intelligence come from.”  And it adds to the static qualities necessary for life such as information, complexity and coherence to actionable hurdles such as building the cell, setting the initial conditions and starting and running the life process.  The conclusions are summarized here:

Science, defined as physics (including chemistry) absent intelligence, provides an explanation for the natural world.  Observations show that life and man-made machines also follow the laws of science.  Natural causes are the result of work performed by free energy. Free energy, defined as energy available to do work in a system that is devoid of embedded intelligence, constrained by physics, cannot achieve all possibilities allowed by the laws of physics as presumed by materialists⁹.

Life and man-made machines can extend possibilities because they use embedded, constrained energy controlled by embedded intelligence. Embedded intelligence is only possible in matter/energy¹⁰ of specified configuration, functioning in an intelligent process.

Natural causes, that is, work resulting from free energy, always moves toward a singular state determined by and limited in outcomes by the initial conditions caused by previous naturally caused events and the laws of physics.¹¹ Such events result in atoms, molecules, suns, solar systems with planets, black holes and galaxies, weather,¹² erosion, and plate tectonics,¹³ but not machines.

Life and man-made machines can only exist because of intelligent processes running within them.  Intelligent processes require logical functionality; the ability to make logical decisions plus means to do the specified work the logical decision commands.  Logical functionality is beyond the ability of natural causes where the outcome is always a singular state independent of any logical requirement.¹⁴

There is nothing in science that restricts intelligent manipulation of matter/energy to enable intelligent (logical) functionality.  Such manipulation embeds intelligence into such an entity, and intelligence is in the realm of philosophy, not science.

This illustrates the flow from one state to another by work resulting from natural causes compared to machines:

Natural Processes¹⁵ (Science) → Unguided Results limited by lack of logical functionality

Engineering (Science + Intelligence) → Process Control enabled by machines → specified results

The mantra that Intelligent Design (ID) should not be taught in public schools because it is not science¹⁶ is wrong because life itself is not pure science, it is science plus logic; it is matter/energy with embedded logical functionality that can create logically defined states.  Intelligent Design, based on the arguments herein, addresses life in this manner.

This paper shows that logical constraints limit the outcomes of natural causes; that there is embedded intelligence in the cell and machines, and why logical functionality is required to achieve machine functionality. In addition, this paper explains why specifitviity of information or work has no meaning in the world of science yet can be implemented by science with embedded intelligence.

This paper provides the logical explanation for the necessity of Life being engineered.  The only caveat is that the science we think we understand is correct and that science we do not understand such as dark matter and energy and entanglement, may eliminate the necessity for engineering.

This paper provides theorems that define the limitations of natural outcomes and logical explanations why engineered configurations of matter/energy can expand upon these capabilities. Clarity and coherence impose the need to precisely define some existing terminology and to create new terminology.  Such terms have brief definitions embedded in the text and are expanded in footnotes.

This paper posits that the inability of natural causes to perform logical functionality is falsifiable where all other arguments regarding beginning life are not. In addition, a method of falsifying the possibility of a chemical path to beginning life is provided.

In addition, the realization that life and machines require embedded intelligence puts a spotlight on the ultimate chicken-egg question; what causes the other: intelligence or science (matter/energy/space/time)?  If science is the cause, intelligence must be an artifact of science.  If intelligence is the cause, then the anthropic principle is explained.  This paper does not address this question further.

The term matter/energy is used herein when referring to life or running machines because they are processes that must continually expend energy to conduct the intelligent actions (embedded intelligence) required.  This is analogous to the use of the term matter used in conjunction with the embedded information required for life and machines.

Next Section:  The Limits of Natural Causes

The debate surrounding the origins of first life focus on disproving the materialist doctrine that all that exists can be explained by matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics, and that there is a chemical pathway to first life.  The Intelligent Design (ID) argument is that life is very complex, requiring high degrees of specified information, design, with vast coherence, making the probability of natural causes finding a viable life solution orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe.

This paper posits another, more powerful ID argument based on two premises: 1) that outcomes of natural processes, defined as processes that follow the laws of physics with no intelligence involved, are limited due to logical constraints and 2) life is an intelligent process which is beyond the reach of natural causes.  The rationale behind these premises is explained in this paper, and a simple means of falsifying them posited.  The necessity to consider not only the design of life, but the actual building, starting and operation of life is invoked by the arguments presented here.

The research for this paper lead to findings that have significance:

1. They show that there is intelligence embedded in life meaning that life itself is not just science, it is science plus logic (intelligence) which is in the realm of philosophy,
2. They move the ID argument from life originating by natural causes from insanely improbable to impossible,
3. They switch materialist argument regarding first life by agreeing that physics is not a constraint, but there are logical constraints against its formation by natural causes that are just as real.
4. They provide basis for definitive, coherent definitions of life, science, engineering and sharpen the dividing line between science and philosophy,
5. They provide a simple test that falsifies the idea that there is a chemical pathway to first life.

Next Section:  Background

The Limitations of Natural Causes

Materialist contention that life is the result of Natural Causes is based on the premise that Natural Causes account for everything that exists.  The assertion being made here is that his is not true; Natural Causes are capable of creating only a small fraction of the possible states of matter/energy that are theoretically possible based on the laws of physics.  There are three reason provided here that rebuke this assertion:  life is a process that requires logical functionality to work, which Natural Causes are incapable of, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and logical analysis.

Life is a Process That Requires Logical Functionality

The fact that life is a process is not disputed.  The common definition of a process is “a series of actions taken to actions taken to achieve an end.”  Based on this definition, life is a process at all levels.  All life, taken together is a process because life depends upon life – there is a food chain with recycling.  Each organism has hundreds of processes that control the temperature, digestion, respiration, etc..  The same can be said about each cell with processes like repairing or replacing proteins, cell division, etc..

There are two types of processes, natural processes and intelligent processes.  Natural processes are those that occur as a result of free energy resulting from naturally caused events and result in atoms, molecules, planets, suns, and galaxies.  On earth, they account for weather, erosion, rivers, terrain features, caves, etc..  The “end” achieved is without any intelligent influence save the possibility of an intelligent cause of the laws of physics.

The other type of process is an intelligent process that involves logical actions defined here as Intelligent Work.  Such a process requires the functionality of sensing conditions, called state variables by engineers, the ability to process the information, i.e., to determine action to take based on the state variables, and actuators, the means to apply the needed energy, in the form, time profile t place and orientation specified.  Specified power must be provided for the sensing means, logic functionality, signaling means, and the actuator. This means that free energy, unless it is captured and converted to specified energy by machines, e.g., windmills, solar cells, will not suffice.

Processes require logical functionality because the work they must perform is contingent upon conditions. 

Where Did The Information Come From?

Steve Meyer documents the requirement for massive amounts of information to suddenly appear to account for the Cambrian Explosion in his book Darwin’s Doubt. Materialist have come to acknowledge this fact despite the insanely low improbability, but insist that it must have happened because life does exist, and to think otherwise is unscientific. 

Free Energy

In physics and chemistry, free energy refers to amount of internal energy available in a system available to do work.  Normally this is a temperature gradient in the system. The higher temperature matter, has heat energy available or “free” to do work,   But the energy source could be something different such as a impinging photon or some other particle. Whatever the form, free energy is energy resulting from natural causes that is available at some point in a system to do work. This energy is unable to perform specified work because it is the result of natural events and will not be guaranteed to be the right form, right amount and profile, right time, direction, etc.  

Another reality is that free energy disperses from its source.  This is caused by the bulk properties (e.g. thermal conductivity) that result from the naturally caused equilibrium states (e.g., atoms and molecules). This means that if there is a requirement to provide a given amount of energy at some given point, the energy source would have to located at the exact point needed, and have to be the right amount, at the right time to achieve the required end, otherwise it would impact the adjoining matter.  Natural causes have no method of delivering specified energy.  This is especially true in a cell because the cell is an enclosed space.  The other problem in a cell is that there are thousands of different types of molecules (specified complexity), many with weak bonds, a necessary condition for functional proteins. Heat, the most common source of free energy will impact all of the cell bonds causing many unwanted reactions for each desired action.  The only source of energy that would impact a singular point within a cell¹⁷ would be a impinging particle, which, to do the required Intelligent Work, would have to impart the right amount of energy, at the right time, at the right place having evaded all of the intervening matter to get  there.

These problems are overcome in cells by the Intelligent Work performed by the molecular machines in the cell, delivering ATP molecule(s) to the place needed and “firing” it (or them) at the needed point in time.  An analogy in the macro world that we can relate to would be a hand drill that powered instead of batteries, fire crackers.