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:³

“…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 constraints⁶

A man can perform intelligent work,⁷ 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.