I wouldn’t stake my life on that. "But one of the most prominent young physicists in the world has claimed...life is as inevitable as inorganic matter. The bold new theory suggests that atoms, when subjected to energy, will always form some form of life - and it may mean we are part of a universe teeming with other organisms.” More at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2875874/Life-Earth-wasn-t-luck-development-inevitable-rocks-rolling-hill-claims-physicist.html.
That “theory” seems to be the very poor reasoning. Here’s the meat of it, from the article:
“Energy will always seek the path of least resistance if left to its own devices, which is why things in the universe - including the universe itself - tend to ‘spread out’, also known as an increase in entropy.
Based on this, Dr England suggests that when atoms are supplied with energy, in certain conditions they will always eventually give rise to life.
‘You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,’ he said.
The reason for this, and the underlying aspect of his theory, is that while all matter - from rocks to plants - absorbs and dissipates energy, life is much better at redistributing it.”
Entropy is a natural law, like conservation of momentum. It’s just a fundamental part of the mechanics of this universe. So it doesn’t require any life to happen, and if life doesn’t exist in the first place, then there is no intelligence to say “oh this entropy could happen so much more efficiently if there was some life”. We might observe that entropy increases in the presence of life, but to work backwards from that to the conclusion that life must spontaneously self-organize itself with the goal of increasing entropy is ridiculous and unsupportable.