Life Origin

A Scientific Approach

Edited for the Non-Scientist

Is “Self-Organization” even possible?  

In the discussion of the previous question, we differentiated “order” from “organization.”  But, what about “self-organization”? 


It is much more difficult to define “self-organization” than “organization.”  One reason is that “self-organization” has never been observed.  Repeated observation is one of the pillars of science.  The notion of “self-organization” is immediately in  trouble from a scientific perspective.


Others pillars of science include “testability (falsifiability)” and “predictability.”   The notion of “self-organization” cannot be tested if it has never been observed.  No possibility of reliable predictions exist, either, of “self-organization,” if it has never been observed to occur.  The notion of “self-organization” fails all three forms of scientific scrutiny.  “Self-organization” comes far closer to superstition than to science.  


The notion of "self-organization" arises out of "pretzel thinking."   In addition to never having been observed, it is logically impossible


It’s a logical impossibility for anything to self-organize itself into existence!1,2  


Something would have to already exist in order to be a cause of any effects. 


          If it already exists, how could it bring itself into existence?


          An effect cannot be its own cause.


From a purely logical standpoint,  “self-organization” is completely untenable.  Logical soundness is another crucial tool in scientific method.  We are left wondering how we could even define a self-contradictory nonsense term like “self-organization?

The notion of “self-organization” cannot possibly contribute mechanism or explanation to any scientific hypothesis if the very term is both unobservable self-contradictory, and logically fallacious.  Even if the term made sense, at best it would be tautological—circular, with no new meaning or information.  It would not answer the all-important scientific question of, “How?”   How could the first genetic instructions have written themselves? 


What machinery would have been waiting to process those instructions even if they had randomly written themselves?   What central processing unit would be waiting that was specifically designed and engineered to process those symbolized programming decisions?  Inanimate prebiotic nature could not have dealt with the formalism of “representationalism.”  Yet, that is exactly the phenomenon observed in molecular biology.   Codons functionally “represent” each prescribed amino acid.  No physico-chemical necessity links the nucleotides in DNA with the amino acids of instructed and needed proteins.  The two languages have to be formally “translated” using a symbolic, formal codon table.  


All known life is cybernetic.  Not only do programs not write themselves, computers don’t design, organize, engineer and manufacture themselves.  Neither do cells.


But, couldn’t self-ordering phenomena eventually produce formal organization, given enough time? 


Absolutely not!  It is a logical impossibility for fixed, redundant, boring, self-ordered states to make wise programming decisions.  No freedom of programming choice would exist in such a state.   Everything would happen the same way every time, “by law.” 


It would be impossible to define the laws of physics if ordinary physical events did not happen the same way every time.  The very reason we value the laws of physics so highly is that reams of data can be reduced to simple little mathematical formulas like f = ma,  or e = mc2.   Self-ordering depends upon consistent force laws and monotonous interactions.   Neither chance nor necessity (law) could ever program any computation, in any amount of time.  Purposeful choices are needed to organize anything, including protocells.  Inanimate nature cannot make purposeful choices. 


Self-ordered tornadoes and hurricanes, for example, don’t organize anything!  Tornadoes and hurricanes invariably destroy organization.


Genetic programming (genotype) had to have been written prior to the existence of any phenotype.  Only then could the environment favor the fittest already-programmed, already-living organisms.3 


No scientific justification exists for attributing the exquisite formal organization of life to the “self-ordering” phenomena addressed by chaos theory.2-27


Life–origin scientists are well aware of this fact, although they almost never talk about it, even amongst themselves.  


Instead, wishful thinking prevails.  Pure imagination runs wild with all sorts of models based on the pre-assumption of “self-organization.”   Naturalistic abiogenecists have no choice but to believe in “self-organization.”   This belief is required to maintain logical consistency with their presupposition―their starting axiom―that “Nature is sufficient to explain nature.”  The problem is, this axiom does not correspond with the reality we all have to live in.  Physicality cannot explain all of the pieces of reality’s puzzle, starting with life’s programming, processing, and subcellular computation.


No such thing as “self-organization” exists.  The corner-stone of every naturalistic model of life origin is sinking sand―mental mush.  Nothing could possibly be more unscientific and superstitious.


Life could not possibly have self-organized itself into existence.  What would successfully compute the orchestration of biofunction and integrated, holistic metabolism?


Life is the most highly organized phenomenon known to humans.


          What did the organizing of life in a lifeless environment?


          What did the programming and processing?


The reality of formal, choice-induced causation at the subcellular, cellular, multicellular, and organismal levels of life cannot be denied.  Mere physical interactions cannot explain it.  Not only is Physical Determinism a part of reality; Choice Determinism is also a fundamental category of reality.24


Choice Determinism could not have arisen from chance and necessity, mass and energy.  Yet Choice Determinism is the key to life’s programming.3,19,20,23-26


 Choice Determinism is also the route to manufacturing the conceptually complex “machinery” that has to process the cell’s programming.


Life exists.  How did life come into existence if mass and energy, chance and necessity, could not possibly have organized it?28-35


Any attempt to answer this question would be labeled, "metaphysical.”   Asking the question is as far as science can go on the subject.  But this stopping point in science has great significance.  Quality science eliminates a lot of metaphysical dogma pontificated in the name of science.  “Self-organization” dogma is proven to be utter nonsense in purely scientific terms.36


Hopefully, we are left with more open minds.  Perhaps science cannot address and answer every question about reality.  Perhaps the worldview of “naturalism” is not as scientific as we thought.  Perhaps reality is bigger than the embarrassingly limited perimeter drawn by materialistic “scientism.”


“Scientism” is found to be “pseudo-science.”



1.            Sproul RC. Not a Chance:  the Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; 1994.

2.            Abel DL. Primordial Prescription:  The Most Plaguing Problem of Life Origin Science   New York, N. Y.: LongView Press Academic; 2015.

3.            Abel DL. The Formalism > Physicality (F > P) Principle. In: Abel DL, ed. In the First Gene: The birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, New York: Ed. LongView Press-Academic, 2011: Biological Research Division; 2011:447-492  Also available from

4.            Abel DL. Is Life Reducible to Complexity? In: Palyi G, Zucchi C, Caglioti L, eds. Fundamentals of Life. Paris: Elsevier; 2002:57-72.

5.            Abel DL. Life origin: The role of complexity at the edge of chaos.  Lecture given at the Headquarters of the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, Jerry Chandler and Kay Peg, Chairmen. 2006;  Power Point slides and speaker notes downloadable.

6.            Abel DL. Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences. 2007;93(4):1-20 [Last accessed: March, 2015].

7.            Abel DL. The capabilities of chaos and complexity. Society for Chaos Theory: Society for Complexity in Psychology and the Life Sciences; Aug 8-10, 2008; International Conference at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

8.            Abel DL. The capabilities of chaos and complexity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009;10(Special Issue on Life Origin):247-291 Open access at  [last accessed: March, 2015] Also available from

9.            Abel DL. The biosemiosis of prescriptive information. Semiotica. 2009;2009(174):1-19  Also available from

10.          Abel DL. Prescriptive Information (PI) [Scirus SciTopic Page]. 2009; [Last accessed: March, 2015].

11.          Abel DL. Constraints vs. Controls:  Progressing from description to prescription in systems theory. Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal. 2010;4:14-27 Open Access at [Last accessed: April, 2016]  Also available from

12.          Abel DL. Moving 'far from equilibrium' in a prebitoic environment: The role of Maxwell’s Demon in life origin. In: Seckbach J, Gordon R, eds. Genesis - In the Beginning: Precursors of Life, Chemical Models and Early Biological Evolution. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012:219-236  Also available from

13.          Abel DL, Trevors JT. Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling. 2005;2:29-45.

14.          Abel DL, Trevors JT. More than metaphor: Genomes are objective sign systems. Journal of BioSemiotics. 2006;1(2):253-267  Also available from

15.          Abel DL, Trevors JT. Self-Organization vs. Self-Ordering events in life-origin models. Physics of Life Reviews. 2006;3:211-228  Also available from

16.          Abel DL, Trevors JT. More than Metaphor: Genomes are Objective Sign Systems. In: Barbieri M, ed. BioSemiotic Research Trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2007:1-15  Also available from

17.          Abel DL. Is Life Reducible to Complexity? Workshop on Life: a satellite meeting before the Millennial World Meeting of University Professors; 2000; Modena, Italy.

18.          Abel DL, ed The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, NY: LongView Press-Academic; 2011.

19.          Abel DL. Is life unique? Life. 2012;2(1):106-134  Open access at  [Last accessed July, 2016]  Also available from

20.          Abel DL. The Genetic Selection (GS) Principle [Scirus SciTopic Page]. 2009; [Last accessed: March, 2015].

21.          Abel DL. The Cybernetic Cut [Scirus SciTopic Page]. 2008; [Last accessed: July, 2016].

22.          Abel DL. The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness [Scirus SciTopics Page]. 2010; [Last accessed: March, 2015].

23.          Abel DL. What is ProtoBioCybernetics? In: Abel DL, ed. The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, N.Y.: LongView Press-Academic: Biolog. Res. Div.; 2011:1-18  Also available from

24.          Abel DL. The three fundamental categories of reality. In: Abel DL, ed. The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, N.Y.: LongView Press-Academic: Biolog. Res. Div.; 2011:19-54  Also available from

25.          Abel DL. The Cybernetic Cut and Configurable Switch (CS) Bridge. In: Abel DL, ed. The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, N.Y.: LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.; 2011:55-74  Also available from

26.          Abel DL. What utility does order, pattern or complexity prescribe? In: Abel DL, ed. The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, N.Y.: LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.; 2011:75-116  Also available from

27.          Abel DL. The Birth of Protocells. In: Abel DL, ed. The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. New York, N.Y.: LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.; 2011:189-230  Also available from

28.          Behe M. Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 2010;85(4  December).

29.          Behe MJ. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Simon & Shuster: The Free Press; 1996.

30.          Behe MJ, Dembski W, Meyer SC. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press; 2000.

31.          Meyer SC. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 2004;117:213-239.

32.          Meyer SC. Signature in the Cell. New York: Harper Collins; Reprint edition Harper One (2010); 2009.

33.          Axe DD. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. J Mol Biol. August 27, 2004 2004;341(5):1295-1315.

34.          Axe DD. The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds. BIO-complexity. 2010;1:1-12.

35.          Axe D. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 2016.

36.          Overman DL. A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 1997.