Yes, people like John Allen have been making the assinine argument for years that innert irrelevent examples of order mean that higher and higher complexities can occure naturally in an ‘open system’ - poor John Allen Paulos are dupes of ‘scientists’ like Tom Schnieders who wrote his case for life (posted on talkorigins) originating from purely natural means simply because ice crystals (which are non living by the way- incase John Allen doesn’t recognize this distinction) can form orderly patterns out of ‘disorder’
For anyone that wants to see scientists liek Tom Schnieders get spanked for beleiving such assinine dogma, take a look at the butt kicking Tim Wallace gave Schneider (which made Tom stomp off like a jilted schoolgirl whining all the way to his own website where he continued to whine thereafter)
http://www.trueorigin.org/9907.asp
Here’s a quick preview
“*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law…
Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.*”
Schneider starts out tryign to make an argument that life ‘could violate the second law’ because ‘examples exist in nature that show negative entropy’ and hwen he fails miserably, He then reverts to the tired out merrygoround symantics game, tryign to trip up wallace, but wallace expertly hands him his butt on a platter- it was quite an exchange- which if yopu have hte time, be sure to read his otehr exchanges on the subject too- fascinating to watch grown scientists cry when they can’;t defend their absurd beliefs.
The argument that small amounts of order that might appear at random is justification to assume that larger amounts of order occur, is the same argument used by evolutionists that variation within species (microevolution) being observed is enough to conclude that speciation (macroeveolution ) must have occurred.
It’s a huge assumption made by extrapolating that has no basis.
It’s not surprising that the same flaw in reasoning occurs in in both fields. If you’re going to do it in one area, it will spill over to others.