August 10, 2026

One creationist argument against naturalistic accounts of the origin of life goes: “Given the laws of thermodynamics, life could not have emerged spontaneously from non-living matter.” The argument, however popular, needs critical analysis. What does thermodynamics actually tell us? And, is there a better argument?

First, thermodynamics enables quantification of the difference between one state and another for some system in terms of energy and structural organization (entropy). Second, thermodynamics can also tell us if there is a release of energy during a transition between states, or alternatively, if energy in the form of work is needed to enable a given transition between states to occur. Finally, thermodynamics also tells us that all spontaneous change is in the direction towards equilibrium - the state in which nothing is poised to change.  

Combining all of these considerations, thermodynamics can tell us first of all, whether or not a given change in state of a system is likely to occur, along with how much energy might be released in the process - energy that can be converted into useful work. It can also tell us how much work is needed to counter a spontaneous process - to either keep it from changing spontaneously or to actually force a change in the non-spontaneous direction. 

It is important to note that thermodynamics does not forbid a non-spontaneous change - rather, it tells us how much work needs to be done to bring about a change if it is non-spontaneous.

Another important idea is expressed in the following statement of thermodynamics' second law based on entropy (expressed in J/Kmol):

                    ΔS_sys + ΔS_surr > zero

In plain language, for all spontaneous processes in which the total available energy is conserved (i.e., the system and surroundings are isolated from all other influences of energy), the change in entropy of a system plus the change in entropy of its surroundings must be greater than or equal to zero. A positive change in entropy corresponds to a decrease in organizational level, and a negative change corresponds to an increase in organizational level. It is entirely possible then, for a system to increase in organization (ΔS_sys < 0) so long as the entropy change in its surroundings is positive and of sufficient magnitude to counter the negative aspect of the change in entropy of the system (ΔS_surr > |ΔS_sys|). For example, if the entropy change in the system is -3 J/Kmol but the change in entropy of the surroundings is +5 J/Kmol, the net sum is still a positive 2 J/Kmol, and the second law is not violated - even with an increase in the level of organization of the system. 

One very important aspect of any process that thermodynamics does not address is the pathway, or individual steps as a system changes from one state to another. The aspect of a detailed pathway lies outside the domain of thermodynamics.

To clarify this idea further, consider the following illustration. Let’s say that we park our vehicle at the bottom of a trail that leads up to the top of a mountain about 1,000 feet high. In our hiking group, each will take a slightly different number of steps. If there are multiple trails to the top, there will be different pathways, each requiring different steps and different energy expenditures. However, we all start at the same initial elevation and end at the same final elevation; and, the difference in vertical distance between where we start and end will be 1,000 feet for every one of us - regardless of the pathway taken. Therefore, we can say for everyone about their trek that it must have a net upward increase, and a net vertical difference of 1,000 feet. In a similar way, thermodynamics can tell us about the net difference in energy and entropy for a given change, but it does not restrict, or even speak to, the particular set of steps taken to achieve a certain change in a system.

Not all processes allow a wide range of possible pathways as our mountain trek. For example, consider manufacture of a Bell helicopter. There is a fixed amount of energy input required for its assembly, which can be deduced on thermodynamic principles - similar to the difference in elevation in our mountain trek. Nevertheless, it takes more than energy to assemble a functional helicopter. We could have all of the helicopter parts in crates and boxes housed in an assembly warehouse. Applying a few sticks of dynamite to the warehouse would certainly provide an increase in energy to the system (and perhaps momentarily provide a little “time in the air" to the system), but we would not expect it to result in a functional helicopter. The energy input needs to be connected to specific tasks in a specific sequence to get things to come out right. That sequence of steps is codified in a set of assembly instructions - the other essential component for the process besides energy.

While thermodynamics can help us figure out what the energy input must be for helicopter assembly, the pathway to successful assembly relies on a unique set of highly specific instructions - the choice of which lies beyond the realm of thermodynamics.

The number of pathways or steps in assembly for our helicopter is highly restricted - provided that we intend to manufacture a functional helicopter. That restriction is a direct outcome of the specificity of the arrangement of parts in the helicopter, and the specific way it needs to be assembled.

Specificity must be distinguished from complexity. The parts of the helicopter could be arranged in an infinite number of ways, each of them very complex. But the functional helicopter requires a very high degree of specificity - there is only one arrangement of parts (or at least a highly limited number of ways) to make a functional helicopter. 

Consider a living system. Thermodynamically speaking we can say several things about living systems: 1) they require energy input, quantifiable by thermodynamics; 2) they exhibit a decrease in entropy over as they grow and develop, thus ΔS_sys < 0; 3) they exist far from equilibrium and much of the energy input in a living system therefore goes to driving the assembly process.

Living systems are also highly complex, not unlike the helicopter. They are also highly specified in terms of the arrangement of their parts (molecular subunits) - again, not unlike the helicopter. The high degree of specificity in a living system is driven by the necessity of proper function for aliveness. Such high level of specificity in a living system is achieved through a pathway resulting from a unique set of highly detailed and specific instructions.

So, where is the instruction manual for the assembly of a living system? We find it in the reproductive germ - codified in the DNA. DNA contains the instructions for connecting input energy to the work of each assembly step, and in the right sequence for achieving a functional living system.

But what about the origin of life, or abiogenesis (living systems emerging from non-living matter)? Thermodynamics shows us that we need an energy input. However we've also shown that thermodynamics does not prevent spontaneous (or non-spontaneous) emergence of systems with higher organization. In addition, we have further shown that thermodynamics does not restrict, or even speak to, the specific details of any possible abiogenetic pathway. But what might that pathway be, then? To date, there is no experimentally known process that demonstrates how the specific information required for a living system can first emerge spontaneously by non-directed processes (i.e., without instructions from an intelligent agency). 

Returning to our original argument, as creationists we cannot claim that thermodynamic law prevents undirected abiogenesis. The real issue clearly lies in the sparsity of finding an abiogenetic pathway for the origin of life - not in any issue of thermodynamic restriction.

---

“…the origin of life field (of study) is a failure - we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth."[1]

---

“Men will endeavor to explain from natural causes the work of creation, which God has never revealed. But human science can not search out the secrets of the God of Heaven, and explain the stupendous works of creation, which were a miracle of Almighty power, any sooner than it can show how God came into existence."[2]

---

References

[1] Koonin, E.V., 2011. The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press. p. 391.

[2] White, E.G., 1864. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3. Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association. Available at: https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/106.379 (Accessed: 26 June 2026).

---

Mitch Menzmer, PhD
Southern Adventist University, TN, USA

---

Suggested citation: Menzmer, M. (2026, August 10). Pathway vs. thermodynamics: The actual problem in abiogenesis. Geoscience Research Institute. https://www.grisda.org/pathway-vs-thermo